[JulieSmithXIV]

Find a boat yet Oerdin?

[JesikaFlpk]

I really don't see what why gays are so hellbent on the issue of Gay Marriage.

If a civil union is structured such that the state grants all the same privileges as marriage, does it really matter. I always considered marriage more of a religious than secular ceremony.

Couldn't you get your civil union, go find whatever person you wanted to perform your marriage ceremony and just leave it at that.

I personally wouldn't mind if the state sent me a letter tomorrow informing me that for semantical purposes the term marriage in the state of Michigan has changed to Civil Union but all rights and benefits remain intact. I am from here forward in a Civil Union as far as the state is concerned with my spouse.

I still had my wedding, we still have all the same benefits of marriage the state just changed the term. I would still consider myself married and I couldn't care what the states legal term was to describe my union.

Why is everyone so hung up about the legal term.

This may be a bad analogy but it would be like a rape victim being upset because her state called it sexual assault. What's really important is that the crime is investigated and the penalty is just. Plus I don't think anyone would be concerned if the victim referred to herself as being raped. Does it really matter if it is called civil union or marriage as long as they are equally recognized,and have the same benefits. 2 men could refer to their spouses still as husbands and could still have a marriage ceremony and even call themselves married if they wanted.

Now certain people here will say it is discriminatory because of the mere fact that a different term is used to describe a heterosexual union as opposed to a homosexual one. But gays freely and sometimes proudly accept different terms to describe elements of their lifestyle Gay vs Straight... Homosexual vs Heterosexual etc. Why can't Civil Union vs Marriage be thought of the same way.

It reminds of the 60's when certain feminists groups were more interested in the form of their movement (burning bra's etc.)as opposed to the substance of their movement (equal opportunity, equal rights etc.) But even that movement never went so far as to say we can't differentiate between men and women in our vocabulary. We still have women's sports, best female actress etc, The real issue is; Do women have equal opportunity in sports or acting?

So I'll ask again, if the state grants identical rights, benefits and privileges to Civil Unions as Marriages, what does it matter.

[onlineslotetes]

Originally posted by Asher

No, but that doesn't exist in any state. It does in Connecticut

[mGUuZRyA]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


It does in Connecticut Does it truly provide benefits to all private contracts that depend on the term "marriage" (eg, insurance discounts)?

[mealiusarses]

I think some people are missing an important point. Even if civil union is equivilent to marriage as far as benefits go it doesn't make it equal. If gays can't get married and call it marriage then they are second class citizens the same way that black children in the 50s were second class citizens in segregated schools.

This sort of segregation has a very negative impact on society.

[Aizutox]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So you would be in favor of a ban on Gay Marriage as long as Gays were allowed to enter into Civil Unions that had identical benefits but just a different name? No, I would be in favour of a ban of government marrying anyone if it is a religious construct (which is the argument of the anti-gay marriage ****wads).

If it is a secular concept, then gays need to marry too.

There are two options, none of which are ban gay marriage while permitting straight marriage.

[cQT6nmEc]

Originally posted by Arrian
The CT supreme court struck down our Civil Unions law.

Prior to that ruling... well, it depends on who you asked, I think. I figure the intent of the C.U. law here was (really) separate but equal, but I never read it.

-Arrian The CA supreme court also struck down our civil unions law. That's how gay marriage became legal in this state. Now, however, it is illegal again. Two steps forward, one step back.

[goldcigarettes]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


So you aren't only interested in Equal Rights, Benefits and Privileges you are hung up on the legal term?

If so thats what I still don't get (as long as the term isn't derogatory or offensive, which I don't think Civil Union is) why do you care? It is not just the legal term. It is the mentality. Gays are still considered second-class social citizens, I get weird looks all the time every time I mention my long-term partner.

Having equal terminology goes a long way to equalizing the social status.

[wooclosmercob]

Some people are forgetting somethng. You can implement full gay marriage protection without churches ever being forced to marry gay couples.

[Nfxutkpa]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


But you freely accept and embrace different terminology. You aren't offended by the term Gay. That is different terminology based soley on your sexual preference. Because it describes the sexual orientation (not preference, huge semantical difference).

What if the state used the following definitions

Civil Union: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the same sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Marriage: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the opposite sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Just as you don't mind these terms:

Gay: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the same sex.

Straight: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the opposite sex. I have already addressed this.

I'd be ****ing ecstatic not to have to identify as gay. I don't like having the label but it is necessary because it discerns who you will be interested in.

The problem with "marriage" and "civil union" is they both describe the same thing: a union of two people with all of the same associated rights. The gender shouldn't matter at all. So why have two different names from it?

The answer is in societal values. Right now, society values "marriage" over "civil unions". Marriage is the real deal, "civil unions" are silly people trying to play house. The key to true equality is to have the same term and the same rights applied to a loving couple, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why do you care so much? Do you resent having heterosexual marriage being compared to a homosexual marriage? Or do you think it's because marriage is religious? Either way you have problems:
1) You are admitting to inequality in the status of the two you are claiming to be equal
2) You are admitting to mixing church with state, which is a no-no in your country

Is it 1, or 2

[Illisezek]

I'll back Civil Union and all the benefits due.

[quack!]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It was in California until yesterday night.

I can't believe Prop 8 passed. Even in my county.

[jinnamys]

So before 2005 Canada didn't tolerate Gays? It wasn't until an Act forced on it's citizens that everyone decided that it would be fine?

[Prererularl]

Originally posted by Japher
So before 2005 Canada didn't tolerate Gays? Before 2008 California didn't tolerate gays?

It wasn't until an Act forced on it's citizens that everyone decided that it would be fine? For gay marriage, yep.

Our good friend Ben will find all kinds of examples of pre-2005 polls showing how unpopular gay marriage was. The supreme court forced it on Canada in 2005 and nobody cared ever since, except Ben. Not even our conservative party has tried to get rid of it. People shrugged and moved on, despite initial opposition. Once the world still existed, the panic faded.

[markshome23]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think some people are missing an important point. Even if civil union is equivilent to marriage as far as benefits go it doesn't make it equal. If gays can't get married and call it marriage then they are second class citizens the same way that black children in the 50s were second class citizens in segregated schools.

This sort of segregation has a very negative impact on society. I must agree with my commie friend. Even if you grant them all the same rights, you are singling out a group and saying they don't deserve to be included in the whole.

[steevyjeors]

Originally posted by MrFun
I want the final goal of respect for the word "marriage" when referring to committed gay couples but the civil union approach is a way to move toward that end. In the United States that will not happen. People are attached to idea of 'marriage' being a legal term.

[assonomaf]

Originally posted by MrFun
Never say never.

How many people would have believed we would have a black president in eight years, eight years ago? He didn't say never.

[WrigleyMike]

I'll start with, I don't give a rats ass what's it called as long as they all have the same legal standing and rights. So if gays want to call it marriage, fine by me.

For this arguement though I go along with the if civil union has same rights don't worry about it. Let the bigots call it whatever they want as long as you get the rights. Nothing says you have to call it a civil union, you can call it a marriage and only people that you don't care about would bother to correct you. Once people get used to the concept and see that the world didn't end, most of them will stop caring about it and within a few years marriage will be the defacto term and there won't be any difference.

I believe the bigger fight you make on the terminology now will just forestall true progress in this area. Take what they give you now, it doesn't mean you won't get the rest later.

[paydayus]

Originally posted by MrFun
Never say never.

How many people would have believed we would have a black president in eight years, eight years ago? Um... eight years ago if Colin Powell said he wanted to be President, George W. Bush would have been spanked in the Republican Primaries as Powell would have cruised to victory. Then a Powell-McCain ticket (or something) would have spanked Al Gore down.

[QvhhbjLy]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


That's a good point but it is different for a few reasons.

Marriage, regardless of race has a generally accepted definition. It is considered to be between a man and a woman, or a heterosexual union. You fail on this assumption. This was not always the case, and it doesn't even matter. Racism at some point was generally accepted to, it doesn't make it right to keep it.

A more appropriate analogy would have asked: would you be offended if they called it an inter-racial marriage. Yes, because race should play no role in the definition of marriage...even if at the time the "generally accepted definition" was a marriage between two people of the same race.

Again, with me, I don't really care what the term is as long as everyone recognizes the meaning of the term. But I do understand why some people get upset about what they view as gays, by insisting on the term marriage to describe a gay union, trying to force society to change the definition of a word, and for some a sacred word, for the purpose of promoting an agenda. The agenda of equality is not an evil one.

The agenda of hate and intolerance, most often espoused by the people you sympathize with here, is an evil one.

Make no mistake, everyone has an agenda. My agenda is equality in society and under the law.

Others have an agenda to persecute, degrade, and silence homosexuals.

Which is worse?