Civil Unions vs. Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 4:46 PM GMT
    CUs aren't working.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 18, 2008 6:27 PM GMT
    In the next quarter century (or at least within my lifetime) we will wonder what the fuss was all about. Having said that, CU is a step along the way, and as more people see them in action, they will realize two things:

    1. They are not a threat to anyone or anything, in fact they strengthen communities.

    2. They will indeed be seen to be inherently unequal under the 14th Amendment, as is slowly happening now. Folks just needed to see it in action to realize that fact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 6:34 PM GMT
    Well, jarhead we agree on this topic.

    CUs are a step along the way, but they embody "separate but equal" which is unconstitutional in the US as you already stated.

    I think that CUs are a violation of the 14th amendment, the fifth amendment, and a violation of the full faith and credit clause as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 7:18 PM GMT
    To me the bottom line is that civil unions are a second class kind of marriage. Even my older straight sister said "civil unions are stupid, why have a different standard for the same thing?" Still, something is better than nothing
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 18, 2008 7:30 PM GMT
    A marriage license is simply a legal document which confers rights to two people. It certainly is not required to love someone or build a life with them, it just makes some things easier along the way (and some alot harder too, for those of us divorced guys...)

    Anyway all I care about is getting equal protection under the law for myself and my partner. I couldn't give a rat's ass what you call it. In fact, having been married, I am actually in favor of the term "civil union" instead of marriage. Let the straights have marriage, just give me the same rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 9:40 PM GMT
    I agree fitfunmitch but words have meaning. Civil Union does not = Marriage, subsequently the legal protections are not equal. Only when Marriage = Marriage with the protections be equal....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 9:50 PM GMT
    There was a case with UPS some two months after the law was passed, where the company refused medical coverage for the civil-union spouse of an employee. Gov. Corzine had to step in to convince UPS to reverse its decision.

    Civil unions are ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 9:53 PM GMT
    I am tired of the excuse politicians use (ObamaRama and Clinton).

    Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition..."

    ***puke***

    Clinton basically said the same thing: "I try so hard not to let Religion influence my decisions but as a Christian..."

    ***puke*** ***puke***

    It almost makes me want to vote for McCain. At least he is honest about it. Almost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2008 10:20 PM GMT
    The problem is that "marriage" has become a legal term and not solely a religious term, which it should be. "Civil Unions" should apply to both same sex unions as well as opposite sex unions when it comes to legal affairs, but until religion is flushed out of government affairs, I believe we will never have equal rights. Luckily, we have seen progress in the right direction, but I don't feel that we'll truly have the equal rights granted to man/woman unions for years to come....especially when the Federal Government is against same sex unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 12:11 PM GMT
    It's like just after the american civil war, when slaves were freed, but were required to have different buses, schools, bathrooms... etc. And of course apartheid in South Africa.

    Damn why are they so protective of a WORD?! Why can't they admit they just don't like accepting the truth that it's two guys or two women getting married.

    Anyways, I don't care much. A rose by any other name...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 12:33 PM GMT
    Even some religious marriages included gays sometimes gay marriages were revered over hetero marriage. Especially in a few Native American religions greece the congo in africa even christianity had it's own version for same sex couples at one point but that particular union is debatable.

    Now of days it's simply a piece of paper a contract between two people in most places only between a male and a female.

    Substitutes are silly and they just kill more treesicon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 12:39 PM GMT
    Can I ask the question, as your laws are different in the US, what do you call a non religous opposing sex union?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 12:44 PM GMT
    marriage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 12:55 PM GMT
    ah right its still referred to as marriage but a registrar performs it here but there is no difference in the eyes of the law on current entitlements be they gay or straight.

    We are lucky as so many rules have been passed these past few years, ie employment laws, access to goods and sevices that protect gay people.

    Not trying to rub your noses in it but Stonewall in the UK really have done an awesome job of raising the agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2008 6:37 PM GMT
    Well luckily here in Florida they are trying to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage, civil unions or any equivalent. So finally we don't have to waste time arguing over marriage vs. civil unions etc. Now we can focus on cutting straight people's hair, waiting on their tables and entertaining good wholesome straight families at Disney...
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 19, 2008 7:04 PM GMT
    McGay, the reason civil unions are not working in New Jersey is not because the idea itself is flawed. It's entirely the problem of the execution. In order for civil unions to work, there must be full equality of rights as with any marriage, and there must also be full standardization (meaning on a federal level, not just by states.)

    So you can either mandate marriage for same-sex couples, or create fully standarized civil unions for others. Both have intriguing pros and cons.

    Personally I prefer the latter. Would much rather think of my man as my "partner" and not my "husband." Anyway those wishing a relgious significance of their relationship can always find a gay-affirming church to perform a ceremony.

    But ultimately, we need and deserve the same rights as everyone else, and it may in fact be easier to push for a nationally recognized civil union than it would be for marriage equality. (Go look back at the failure of HRC a few years ago--they pushed so hard for gay marriage that the right fought back, and that is precisely why there have been all of the marriage ammendments passed in most states since then.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 4:14 AM GMT
    I usually don't compliment France but they do have the right idea on this subject and the United States should follow their model.
    In France, all marriages are civil unions first and marriages second. You don't have to get married but you have to have a civil union, if you want the benefits of a committed couple recognized by the state and subject to it's protections. This effectively separates church and state.
    This means that if we adopt it here in the US, all couples would be equal. Vive l'egalite (I don't have the right French accents on this key board) So civil unions could work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 1:06 PM GMT
    Vive la liberte!
    Vive la fraternite!

    Oh wait... isn't the Statue of Liberty already in the states? weird...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 1:15 PM GMT
    John43620 saidI usually don't compliment France but they do have the right idea on this subject and the United States should follow their model.
    In France, all marriages are civil unions first and marriages second. You don't have to get married but you have to have a civil union, if you want the benefits of a committed couple recognized by the state and subject to it's protections. This effectively separates church and state.
    This means that if we adopt it here in the US, all couples would be equal. Vive l'egalite (I don't have the right French accents on this key board) So civil unions could work.


    You're right, John, but the key point in your argument is that even straight couples' marriages would be civil unions in the law, even if marriages in the religious sense. Thus our "marriages" would not be second-class in any sense. However---fat chance of it happening here.

    You can just hear the fundie preachers now. "They're going to dissolve your marrrrrrrrrrrriage! Send your social security checks NOW!"
  • cmdrkoenig67

    Posts: 163

    Feb 20, 2008 1:18 PM GMT
    Civil Unions to me just feel like segregation...It irks me that it has to be named anything other than a marriage.

    All adults should be able to marry the adults they love, regardless of gender.