Marriage

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue.

I suspect that the emotionally-charged aspect of the issue actually has very little to do with any particular word, even though that is what a lot of people choose to focus on in their arguments.

Well, we learned in "Brown v. Board of Education" that separate but equal is inherently unequal, so we can't have marriage for one group and civil unions for another. That's just not going to work. Marriage for both groups might work, but there's that religious mess in the middle of it.

In talking with people that voted for Prop 8, I don't think that they hate gay people, or really feel all that threatened by them... many of them have gay friends or relatives, and are perfectly nice, reasonable people. What it really came down to was that one damn word and that the word had a religious meaning to them that they didn't want to see change.

I think if we can go towards civil unions for everyone, we'll see it a lot faster than if we insist on marriage for everyone. Ideas are changing with each generation, and homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable. To my parents generation, being gay was something to be hidden. To my generation, it's slightly less so. To my teenage cousins, it's a non-issue. I think gay marriage will happen, but it will take a lot longer if we cling to that word to define a legal union.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

If people want their church official to sign off on their union as they sometimes do now, I don't see what purpose will be served to take that away in order to level the field, so to speak.

There wouldn't be any "taking that away." They can have a religious marriage ceremony too. Nothing is taken away. The right of churches to marry who they wish is preserved.

. . . with the exception that every one would know that it is just symantics. Saying someone is "race intollerant" doesn't make them less of a racist, and calling something a "Civil Union" doesn't make it less than a marriage.

Do you think that the people involved will be confined to say "We are Unionized" or "I am 'unioned' to So and So"? No - they will say that they are married.

Then take into consideration, how exactly would you prevent bigamy and polygamy if you legally justify that there should be no rules as to who or what you can marry?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

did you miss the point of Kris's post? you just highlighted her issue - people being obstinate because of semantics

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I have a marriage certificate. I am an athiest, as is my wife. We were married by an elvis impersonator wearing a catholic priest outfit at a hotel in Vegas.
I guess I have destroyed the meaning behind your marriage certificate.
You're welcome.

I am glad you take joy in this. It says alot about your character.

I actually take no joy in this argument. I find it quite sad actually. I find it sad that in America, the greatest nation on earth, we still find it acceptable to openly discriminate against people based solely on their sexual orientation. I also think its sad that people are cowardly enough to have to hide behind ridiculous arguments about the sanctity of their own marriage as a cover to what their true motivations are. It makes it nearly impossible to have an open and honest discourse.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It seems as though the simplest solution is to separate the two issues. The government, if it remains in the business of recognizing relationships at all (which is another issue entirely), ought to provide "civil unions" to everyone, straight or gay, because the government is recognizing a civil status, and providing legal rights, benefits, and protections based on that civil status, therefore, the words "civil union" are more appropriate. That way, everyone can have the same thing under the law.

This actually happened in Russia right after the revolution in 1917. Before only the church could perform marriages. Then the new government made it the law that only government-made marriages (they also invented a new word for it) are recognized by the government. No church marriage is recognized in Russia after that, so when religious people marry, they usually have stop by the government office on the way from church, and sign the papers. They also put a stamp into your ID - long time ago you were required to have this stamp or marriage certificate for things like double-booking a hotel room.

However I doubt it will ever happen in US. Too many religious nuts there who want everyone else to be religious nuts.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If people want their church official to sign off on their union as they sometimes do now, I don't see what purpose will be served to take that away in order to level the field, so to speak.

There wouldn't be any "taking that away." They can have a religious marriage ceremony too. Nothing is taken away. The right of churches to marry who they wish is preserved.

. . . with the exception that every one would know that it is just symantics. Saying someone is "race intollerant" doesn't make them less of a racist, and calling something a "Civil Union" doesn't make it less than a marriage.

Do you think that the people involved will be confined to say "We are Unionized" or "I am 'unioned' to So and So"? No - they will say that they are married.

Then take into consideration, how exactly would you prevent bigamy and polygamy if you legally justify that there should be no rules as to who or what you can marry?

I agree with this.
Nightingale makes a good argument, but in the end I think it will be even harder if we try to marginalize marriage into civil unions. I think it will be easier to prevent discrimination in marriage.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

What it really came down to was that one damn word and that the word had a religious meaning to them that they didn't want to see change.

OK, so the word has a religious meaning to them; therefore their marriage is religious. My marriage is not religious, and yet that doesn't seem to be a problem for these people, and it doesn't seem to affect the fact that they consider their own marriages to be religious.

I guess I just think they are being silly if they are really that hung up on the definition of a word (and what it means to anyone other than themselves), but I honestly don't believe that that is what they really have an issue with, regardless of what they say.

Just my opinion, of course.

Oh, and yes, I agree that the "separate but equal" doesn't work. It just makes more sense to me to keep the _legal_ word "marriage" rather than changing everyone's marriages to "civil unions." (Though personally, I don't really care what it's called.)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Then take into consideration, how exactly would you prevent bigamy and polygamy if you legally justify that there should be no rules as to who or what you can marry?

Are you talking about the fact, or about the government recognition? If about the fact, why would you prevent it? To me it's not really different from gay marriage - if a group of consented adults want to live and have sex together, why should the government prevent it?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Then take into consideration, how exactly would you prevent bigamy and polygamy if you legally justify that there should be no rules as to who or what you can marry?

Are you talking about the fact, or about the government recognition? If about the fact, why would you prevent it? To me it's not really different from gay marriage - if a group of consented adults want to live and have sex together, why should the government prevent it?

Are you asking why is it a law?

I would say that someone somewhere found it to be wrong and a lot of people agreed with them.

I believe that the offence of adultry is even punishible by Military Code.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The most economical thing to do would simply use the word "marriage" for both meanings, apply the concept to both straight and gay and and be done with it.

Yep. And I think this is the most practical thing to do for many reasons.

I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue. I'm looking for the fastest way to get people rights with the least amount of protest.

Funny how it's the people that seem to bitch the most about increased spending and government involvement in their personal lives that seem to screech the loudest on this issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BikerBabe 0]

the trouble with renaming it to "civil union" is that all those laws that provide those 1138 rights and privileges will have to be scoured and changed to say "civil union" instead of "marriage". Partner instead of spouse, etc etc.

Because if they aren't, you KNOW some money-grubbing insurance company is going to deny someone coverage based on the fact they aren't "married" but "civil union-ed" and they'd probably win in court

So from a purely logistical standpoint, calling everything a "marriage" is the better choice. And probably cheaper too.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Are you asking why is it a law?
I would say that someone somewhere found it to be wrong and a lot of people agreed with them.
I believe that the offence of adultry is even punishible by Military Code.

It was exactly the same with gay sex until just six years ago.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I've been saying this for about five years now. Let churches deal with marriages, and let the government deal with setting up the legal agreement between two people.

It feels like I have been saying it for forever.

I also agree with Rehmwa regarding the amount of rights given to a couple vs. an individual.

As a heterosexual in a nine-year monogamous relationship, there is a ton of pressure both socially and lawfully to marry all the time. It really upsets me, as the only reason I see a need for it is medically. Still, we have wills and living wills. I keep meaning to look into whether or not my hunny's family could override anything we have decided and put to legal paper in that regard.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

I've been saying this for about five years now. Let churches deal with marriages, and let the government deal with setting up the legal agreement between two people.

It feels like I have been saying it for forever.

I also agree with Rehmwa regarding the amount of rights given to a couple vs. an individual.

As a heterosexual in a nine-year monogamous relationship, there is a ton of pressure both socially and lawfully to marry all the time. It really upsets me, as the only reason I see a need for it is medically. Still, we have wills and living wills. I keep meaning to look into whether or not my hunny's family could override anything we have decided and put to legal paper in that regard.

The will doesn't do anything for you in regards to medical decisions. I believe you need a power of attorney for that. Not being married does make things a lot more complicated.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Are you asking why is it a law?
I would say that someone somewhere found it to be wrong and a lot of people agreed with them.
I believe that the offence of adultry is even punishible by Military Code.

It was exactly the same with gay sex until just six years ago.

Except adultry and bigamy and polygamy still are.

And you, by association are asking JAG to change the UCMJ to allow gay marriages, or civil unions in their doctrination as well. Yeah - I don't see that happening.

The government would then be required to subsidize housing for and give larger expense allowances to civil unionized people. So anyone in the military could simply say that they are married, without any recourse, and give themselves a 40% raise for each person. I can't forsee the military ever letting that happen.

And until the law is the same, fundamentaly, then the change will not happen.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I don't think so... Marriage is a covenant between two people, God, and their community, and a change in legal status shouldn't affect that at all.

Current marriages would be recognized as valid civil unions. All it would require is a simple grandfather clause. The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

or (as now) the minister would license himself to perform those unions and kill 2 birds with one stone.

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Except adultry and bigamy and polygamy still are.

What? Are you saying this is illegal for a male to live with three females, or vice versa?

Quote

And you, by association are asking JAG to change the UCMJ to allow gay marriages, or civil unions in their doctrination as well. Yeah - I don't see that happening.

I have no idea what is JAG or UCJM.

Quote

The government would then be required to subsidize housing for and give larger expense allowances to civil unionized people. So anyone in the military could simply say that they are married, without any recourse, and give themselves a 40% raise for each person. I can't forsee the military ever letting that happen.

The obvious solution is not to provide any subsidies to any married people. After all, what the government has with your "vows under God"?

Quote

And until the law is the same, fundamentaly, then the change will not happen.

And the laws are changing.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Except adultry and bigamy and polygamy still are.

What? Are you saying this is illegal for a male to live with three females, or vice versa?

Quote

And you, by association are asking JAG to change the UCMJ to allow gay marriages, or civil unions in their doctrination as well. Yeah - I don't see that happening.

I have no idea what is JAG or UCJM.

Quote

The government would then be required to subsidize housing for and give larger expense allowances to civil unionized people. So anyone in the military could simply say that they are married, without any recourse, and give themselves a 40% raise for each person. I can't forsee the military ever letting that happen.

The obvious solution is not to provide any subsidies to any married people. After all, what the government has with your "vows under God"?

Quote

And until the law is the same, fundamentaly, then the change will not happen.

And the laws are changing.

JAG = Judge Advocate General
It's the military justice system.

UCMJ = Uniform Code of Military Justice

And your solution would finacially cripple those soldiers living close to their means as it is. You would bankrupt thousands upon thousands of families world wide.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And your solution would finacially cripple those soldiers living close to their means as it is. You would bankrupt thousands upon thousands of families world wide.

It used to be that you do not marry, or have children, until you can afford it. We called it "personal responsibility".
Now it seems like the people just get married or have children, and then blame the government that they cannot afford it - and some even expect 40% raises just because they got married??? Fuck them.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

The government would then be required to subsidize housing for and give larger expense allowances to civil unionized people. So anyone in the military could simply say that they are married, without any recourse, and give themselves a 40% raise for each person. I can't forsee the military ever letting that happen.

This would only make sense if military people were not allowed to marry, but could be civil union-ed. There is no difference. Do you honestly believe there are not "marriages of convenience" in today's military?

[livendive 8]

Quote

absolutely - and REALLY minimize the benefits that accrue to the civil union

seriously, the list of benefits to a pair of adults in a 'governmente sanctioned' legal arrangement should be pretty small and easily defined - simple list - inheritance; medical decisions; not much else

or take that the final level - I'd question the validity of most benefits that only a couple get that isn't also offered to the individual

if a couple notes difference in the benefits of what's currently allowed to married couples - I'd first look at the benefit for deletion from traditional couples, rather than expand the currently unfair cost to even more people

if we are a country of individuals, why should there be any form of partnership sponsored by the government? - let anyone live with anyone and let partnerships be outside of government completely.

Why should two individuals get any better, or worse, treatment than two others that have some kind of agreement?

What he said. I'm currently annoyed by the fact that once again my government has decided I should pay more taxes (or be credited/refunded less) solely because my girlfriend and I haven't tied the knot. In my opinion, legally and/or religously partnered individuals should enjoy no more or less benefits than single citizens. I am happy that at least I have the option to marry the person I love and take advantage of the government subsidies, whereas homosexuals do not, but I still think the best solution would be for the government to simply turn a blind eye to the institution and treat every individual as a unique entity.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've been saying this for about five years now. Let churches deal with marriages, and let the government deal with setting up the legal agreement between two people.

It feels like I have been saying it for forever.

I also agree with Rehmwa regarding the amount of rights given to a couple vs. an individual.

As a heterosexual in a nine-year monogamous relationship, there is a ton of pressure both socially and lawfully to marry all the time. It really upsets me, as the only reason I see a need for it is medically. Still, we have wills and living wills. I keep meaning to look into whether or not my hunny's family could override anything we have decided and put to legal paper in that regard.

The will doesn't do anything for you in regards to medical decisions. I believe you need a power of attorney for that. Not being married does make things a lot more complicated.

This is correct.

And from a legal standpoint, not being "married" does completely negate your rights to allow your partners wishes to be made.... unless you have that durable power of attorney on file. Otherwise... you have no rights to sign for anything if the other is incapacitated.

Personal experience - before my husband and I got married, he fell while rappelling and broke both wrists, messed up his knee and other minor things. I was present, had been with him for the past 4-5yrs, but was NOT allowed to sign for anything. The nurse made him try to hold the pen (with two broken wrists) and scribble something (they SHOULD have just done a verbal and witnessed it... but they wanted to be "legal") If we had had a durable power of attny - we were up north, outside of our home city, unless we carried it at all times.... they STILL wouldn't have honored the "but I promise that I have it at home."

Once "married" - I can sign for him and he can sign for me. Even without a DPOA.

The doctors and nurses are just "trying" to make sure that they have a "legal" consent so that the person that had the surgery can't later come back and sue them for care that they didn't consent to... called assault and battery.

Should the medical field (through government acceptance of marraige) allow you to pass off your consent just because of a bad (good?) night in Vegas? Should they be allowed to deny the desires of a patient as given through a loved one that might not be "married"? (Maybe the answers are buried deep within HR 3200 )


Other factors.... why should two consenting adults that are "married" get better benefits than two consenting adults that are "civil union-ed"? The government shouldn't care either way. That whole separation of church and state thing - shouldn't matter if it was a HUGE Catholic wedding with a church full of ankle biters or a Jewish wedding or a Wiccan ceremony or a wedding on the Reservation or a civil ceremony in the court house. And it shouldn't matter if it's male/female or male/male or female/female or shemale/shemale or .... Benefits provided from the Government should be equal. (That is if the Government SHOULD be giving any benefits for just being married)

[SpeedRacer 1]

"Mawwage!! Mawwage is what bwings us togethah today!"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

absolutely - and REALLY minimize the benefits that accrue to the civil union

seriously, the list of benefits to a pair of adults in a 'governmente sanctioned' legal arrangement should be pretty small and easily defined - simple list - inheritance; medical decisions; not much else

or take that the final level - I'd question the validity of most benefits that only a couple get that isn't also offered to the individual

if a couple notes difference in the benefits of what's currently allowed to married couples - I'd first look at the benefit for deletion from traditional couples, rather than expand the currently unfair cost to even more people

if we are a country of individuals, why should there be any form of partnership sponsored by the government? - let anyone live with anyone and let partnerships be outside of government completely.

Why should two individuals get any better, or worse, treatment than two others that have some kind of agreement?

What he said. I'm currently annoyed by the fact that once again my government has decided I should pay more taxes (or be credited/refunded less) solely because my girlfriend and I haven't tied the knot.

Funny - when I got married in 2008 we ended up owing about $4k MORE than when we were single.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

absolutely - and REALLY minimize the benefits that accrue to the civil union

seriously, the list of benefits to a pair of adults in a 'governmente sanctioned' legal arrangement should be pretty small and easily defined - simple list - inheritance; medical decisions; not much else

or take that the final level - I'd question the validity of most benefits that only a couple get that isn't also offered to the individual

if a couple notes difference in the benefits of what's currently allowed to married couples - I'd first look at the benefit for deletion from traditional couples, rather than expand the currently unfair cost to even more people

if we are a country of individuals, why should there be any form of partnership sponsored by the government? - let anyone live with anyone and let partnerships be outside of government completely.

Why should two individuals get any better, or worse, treatment than two others that have some kind of agreement?

What he said. I'm currently annoyed by the fact that once again my government has decided I should pay more taxes (or be credited/refunded less) solely because my girlfriend and I haven't tied the knot.

Funny - when I got married in 2008 we ended up owing about $4k MORE than when we were single.

I suppose it depends on the individual vs. collective situation. In my opinion, it shouldn't make a difference either way.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

What he said. I'm currently annoyed by the fact that once again my government has decided I should pay more taxes (or be credited/refunded less) solely because my girlfriend and I haven't tied the knot.

Funny - when I got married in 2008 we ended up owing about $4k MORE than when we were single.

Exactly the point I wanted to make - people assume you get less taxed because you are married - nuts

If I make $150K/year and my 'partner' makes $30K/year

single
we pay taxes on $150K at the 150K rate - a lot
plus $30K at the 30K rate - nothing
net is between the two of us we pay on 150K at that 150K rate

married
we pay taxes on 180K at the 180K rate

how on earth is that a 'benefit'?

Quote

I suppose it depends on the individual vs. collective situation. In my opinion, it shouldn't make a difference either way.

agreed

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants