This is gay

[Random]

What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

If you have a civil union and then break up, does one have to pay the other alimony? If you have a civil union, and one of them sleeps with someone else, is that grounds for adultery? Can they get the family rate on insurance?

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?

Well there are several. There are the issues of Social Security benefits, joint filing of income taxes, not being forced to testify against each other in a court of law, immigration rights of people who chose to marry someone from another country, inheritance rights, standing in child custody disputes, etc.
Homosexual couples can solve a variety of these differences with Civil Unions and Power of Attorney Agreements, but not all of them. As a purely practical matter, the cloak of Marriage that heterosexuals enjoy is vastly superior to the crazy patchwork of fig leaves that is the Civil Union.
There is also cost. A heterosexual couple that wants to marry just needs a justice of the peace and a marriage certificate. A homosexual couple looking for the same rights would need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in various legal fees and would never quite get there.

 

[Tony]

There are good practical reasons not to allow polygamy. When you can have an arbitrary number of partners, the recordkeeping and tax complications pile up pretty quick. Especially since divorces would probably stay high (or go even higher), it would be a nightmare for the the census bureau, not to mention the IRS (how do you file jointly when your two wives are each also married to two other men, not to mention their additional spouses? That's a lot of exemptions!)

Then eliminate the IRS. Why should people be denied freedom for the sake of a tyrannical government beaurocracy?

 

[Thanz]

"However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married"

Isnt that the same as saying gays can marry too. They only have to marry soemone of the opposite sex.

I don't see it as the same - "how many" is different from "at all". But as I said above, for some it may be a distinction without a difference. In any case, it should be addressed directly rather than used obliquely as an argument against gay marriage, which makes no sense.

 

[Tmy]

I don't see it as the same - "how many" is different from "at all". But as I said above, for some it may be a distinction without a difference. In any case, it should be addressed directly rather than used obliquely as an argument against gay marriage, which makes no sense.

I think its more of an argumnet allowing for lawmakers limitations on marriage.

What makes no sense is how some poeple think its the worse thing int the world having a restriction to marriage that is "man + women" but are fine with the restriction of "one person + one person". Whos to say that line in the sand is any better.

 

[NightG1]

They had 95% ...snip[/B]

So you do have a problem with Elton John.

 

[toddjh]

Then eliminate the IRS. Why should people be denied freedom for the sake of a tyrannical government beaurocracy?

Hey, I'm all for eliminating the IRS. But that wouldn't solve the problem. Right now, the government recognizes marriage and grants benefits to married people because they think it has some usefulness in society. The complications that would be caused by polyamorous marriages would remove all of that usefulness, and create a whole host of new problems.

As others have suggested, one solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. That would work, but I also don't think it's a discrimination to limit legally recognized marriages to two people as a matter of practicality. Equal protection only applies when the groups in question are actually functionally equivalent.

Jeremy

 

[Checkmite]

I was doing some thinking on this issue last night, and something occurred to me: to wit, that while the government can involve itself in the question of "civil unions", it cannot constitutionally involve itself in marriage; the argument here is that marriage is a religious institution, whose constraints are to be dictated by each particular religion. Thus, if a religion chooses to allow gays to marry, and the state prohibits gay marriage, the state is then prohibiting the free exercise of religion (which it is explicitly prevented from doing by the First Amendment). The argument is very, very simple indeed, if this is the case. I wonder how many will pick it up?

 

[Otther]

Well there are several. There are the issues of Social Security benefits, joint filing of income taxes, not being forced to testify against each other in a court of law, immigration rights of people who chose to marry someone from another country, inheritance rights, standing in child custody disputes, etc.Homosexual couples can solve a variety of these differences with Civil Unions and Power of Attorney Agreements, but not all of them. As a purely practical matter, the cloak of Marriage that heterosexuals enjoy is vastly superior to the crazy patchwork of fig leaves that is the Civil Union. There is also cost. A heterosexual couple that wants to marry just needs a justice of the peace and a marriage certificate. A homosexual couple looking for the same rights would need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in various legal fees and would never quite get there

So if the law included something that said "the term 'civil union' is analugos with 'marriage' as far as the law is concerned," this would satisfy most of the gay community?

 

[toddjh]

So if the law included something that said "the term 'civil union' is analugos with 'marriage' as far as the law is concerned," this would satisfy most of the gay community?

Well, then you just move on to the question of why you should even draw a distinction. "We get marriages, you get civil unions, but they're the same" sounds an awful lot like "separate but equal."

Seriously, if they're the same, why bother using different words to describe them? Isn't that just needless complication?

Jeremy

 

[Upchurch]

Thus, if a religion chooses to allow gays to marry, and the state prohibits gay marriage, the state is then prohibiting the free exercise of religion (which it is explicitly prevented from doing by the First Amendment). The argument is very, very simple indeed, if this is the case. I wonder how many will pick it up?

Good point. It'd also work for polygamy, since most practioners claim religious reasons. I'm not saying polygomy is a good thing, but I'm not about to tell someone else they can't follow their own religious beliefs, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

The government has a way that it recognizes what counts as a "church" and what does not. Perhaps, it should be that any two conscenting adults should be allowed to get married as long as they have the permission of a recognized church. The state, then, could define it's own criteria for who or who may not be married in civil ceremonies, but couldn't interfere with how each religion decided to define marriage.

The only state imposed restriction that makes any sense under our constitution is that the participants should be conscenting adults. To force the non-conscenting into wedlock is an infringement on their basic rights and children cannot give conscent.

 

[Luke T.]

Good point. It'd also work for polygamy, since most practioners claim religious reasons.

The thing is, though, the government prosecutes polygamy. It does not recognize it as an acceptable religious belief.

 

[Luke T.]

It seems the entire argument in favor of not allowing gays to be officially married is that marriage is a religious institution. Most churches do not recognize gay marriages. We are a religious nation. The majority don't want gay marriages to be recognized because it is irreligious.

However, at least one major religion bans birth control. But many of its adherents use birth control. Birth control is approved by the FDA.

Many religions ban unmarried couples from living together and/or having sex. Hardly anyone follows that rule. The government approves "palimony."

It seems that while some religious people think it is okay to disregard religious restrictions because they don't like them, they want to keep other people from doing the same.

Their is a movement in some religious circles to roll all of this back. Not just gay marriage, but "living in sin," birth control, and everything else they can think of. I have to give them points at least for being consistent.

 

[Silicon]

Here's a great page from religioustolerance.org about the various benefits that straight married couples currently enjoy, that gay couples (even married by a church) do not.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm


A summary:

1049 Federal Rights are denyed gay couples.

About 400 State benefites are denied.

Some of the benefits denied are:


joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in
probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;


Personally, I'd LOVE to see a dollar amount on those rights. That'd put it in perspective.

For fear of sounding like Shanek I'd say it amounts to a special tax on gays.

 

[Checkmite]

Wow, I never realized how many joints gay people do not get to enjoy.

 

[American]

Does this mean you'll be moving to Massachusetts and getting hitched?

I'm already there (here), and I ain't moving nowhere. I'm not gay, therefore I don't like gay people and don't want them to be married in my state. The gays don't agree with this; they want to come here and marry me and turn my future progeny gay (they recruit the young), and make all the girls I could potentially date into lesbians who won't date me. I already know LOTS of them.

So you do have a problem with Elton John.

No no no- I'm just saying that he's a very good musical artist, and we shouldn't judge his talent based on his personal life.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not gay, therefore I don't like gay people {snip}

By this logic:
You are not a woman, therefore you don't like women.
You are not a dog, therefore you don't like dogs.
You are not a child, therefore you don't like children.
You are not ice cream, therefore you don't like ice cream.

Wonderful way you have with words there, American.

The gays don't agree with this; they want to come here and marry me and turn my future progeny gay (they recruit the young), and make all the girls I could potentially date into lesbians who won't date me. I already know LOTS of them.

Why do I doubt that? I play in a band of over 80 gays and lesbians. None of them want to marry a straight guy and turn their children into homosexuals. You're living in a dream world of your own design, American.

edited to add: or maybe of Jack Chick's design... hmm...

 

[Bearguin]

What about this?

The gov't stops recognizing marriages. They ONLY recognize Unions (be they heterosexual or same sex). The legal rules for Unions are the same regardless of the sex of the couples.

Churches are permitted to perform marriages. From a legal standpoint, they have ruled over a Union, but can choose to call it a marriage etc.

The law sees no difference between the two.

Is the label that important?

 

[Fade]

We want to recruit?


What?


This thread has made my day. God damn hilarious.

 

[Luke T.]

I play in a band of over 80 gays and lesbians.

That's some band! 80 people!

None of them want to marry a straight guy and turn their children into homosexuals. You're living in a dream world of your own design, American.

edited to add: or maybe of Jack Chick's design... hmm...

You can't recognize a parody?

 

[Luke T.]

What about this?

The gov't stops recognizing marriages. They ONLY recognize Unions (be they heterosexual or same sex). The legal rules for Unions are the same regardless of the sex of the couples.

Churches are permitted to perform marriages. From a legal standpoint, they have ruled over a Union, but can choose to call it a marriage etc.

The law sees no difference between the two.

Is the label that important?

You know, you just might have something there.