Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
But *why* do civil unions make them feel like 2nd class citizens? Civil unions are marriage. Why are civil unions being defined as "not marriage"? Lots of straight couples get civil unions. This is what I'm not getting. And why the fixation on a church wedding, unless the couple is religious? Because it's tradition? Why have we invested the church with so much power? Who cares about the church? I'm really trying to understand, I guess it's because I've always been an atheist that it's difficult for me to understand this. If a civil union would be good enough for me, why wouldn't it be good enough for other secular people? Who says civil unions aren't marriage? help!
But *why* do civil unions make them feel like 2nd class citizens? Civil unions are marriage. Why are civil unions being defined as "not marriage"? Lots of straight couples get civil unions. This is what I'm not getting. And why the fixation on a church wedding, unless the couple is religious? Because it's tradition? Why have we invested the church with so much power? Who cares about the church? I'm really trying to understand, I guess it's because I've always been an atheist that its' difficult for me to understand this.
I've meet very religious gays who would love to get married to a church.
Just a caution here. B5C does not speak for all gay people. I'm gay, and he doesn't speak for me. And, over the years, many of my gay friends would prefer to go all out for civil unions, and once that is accomplished, then take the next logical step. Polling numbers show that way more than 50% of the population approve of civil unions, thus it is any easier route to ultimately get what we want. But, I also know that many favor the approach to go for it all. My point is -- don't lump us all together.
ok, clearly I'm missing a piece of information. This article states that civil union doesn't provide for the same protections as "marriage". But it doesn't explain what civil union is, what is the definition of civil union. I thought civil union was marriage before a Justice of the Peace, but it sounds like that's not correct. So what is it?
Just a caution here. B5C does not speak for all gay people. I'm gay, and he doesn't speak for me. And, over the years, many of my gay friends would prefer to go all out for civil unions, and once that is accomplished, then take the next logical step. Polling numbers show that way more than 50% of the population approve of civil unions, thus it is any easier route to ultimately get what we want. But, I also know that many favor the approach to go for it all. My point is -- don't lump us all together.
I don't, but me dealing and working with the homosexual community here in Washington State want gay marriage.
From my favorite youtubers and from Seattle:
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited February 2012
@B5C We need more input from you. Could you explain your view of why civil union isn't valued by the gay community? Don't be shy, let us know your thoughts on the topics and articles you're posting here.
Because the gay community doesn't want civil unions. They want marriage. Also to homosexuals civil unions makes them feel like 2nd class citizens and weddings are only special to heterosexuals.
They want all or nothing and no middle ground. They are tired of the middle ground.
This is how I feel, but I am by no means the entirety of the gay community. You have heard from others who support civil unions on here. Just be careful with sweeping generalizations. In my own friends circle, we have both views as well.
But for those that think that I am overly sensationalizing... My home state of MI recently wrote into their own law the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" and made a move to ban "domestic partner benefits" from those within government agencies. Only those working for the government in MI can have their same-sex partners covered as "domestic partners"(unmarried partners that can refer to heterosexuals as well) and I am sad to report that MI succeeded. It was a clear and direct move aimed to target same-sex couples and the ACLU is fighting it as we speak.
"Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners." From: Here.
This is the kind of distinctive crap I see coming our way if we gain civil unions instead of marriage. By having two separate terms, it is easy to single out homosexual couples. Separate =/= Equal.
ok, I got some info on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Civil_union The problem seems to be that civil union is defined differently by different countries and even different States. In some places, civil union = marriage, with all the rights and benefits. In other places, it's officialese for domestic partnership.
In two pages of inquiring, nobody could explain this simple thing?
edit: wow, I'm sorry to hear that, ZG, about the new MI law. It's like it used to be for mixed-race couples: marriage not allowed. : (
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited February 2012
ok, I got some info on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Civil_union The problem seems to be that civil union is defined differently by different countries and even different States. In some places, civil union = marriage, with all the rights and benefits. In other places, it's officialese for domestic partnership.
In two pages of inquiring, nobody could explain this simple thing?
edit: wow, I'm sorry to hear that, ZG, about the new MI law. It's like it used to be for mixed-race couples: marriage not allowed. : (
Nobody can explain because civil unions don't exist in the American government... lol. Like I said above, who knows what they might entail. We would need our government to tell us what their proposed idea of a civil union is before we can compare... But we're obviously not there yet...
This is such a reactionary country, masquerading as a liberal democracy.
Another reason for people to move to Canada. How sad.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
You know, what makes me so mad about what the Michigan Government (Rick Snyder) did is that it wasn't that homosexuals proposed domestic partner benefits and the vote didn't pass... The system already existed to extend domestic partner benefits to homosexuals and they TOOK THAT AWAY. It made them so mad that they felt the need to ban equality... This is the reason the ACLU called it 'cruel and mean spirited' It is. Extremely so.
Snyder justified this by calling it a cost-cutting measure, to reign in health insurance costs to employees??!! That's outrageous! Why not deny ethnic minorities health insurance to save costs, then? That's crazy! But he vetoed a similar bill that would apply the law to university employees? Does that mean that gay marriage is allowed to university employees? This is a crazy situation.
It seems like humans just look for ways to create suffering for each other, going out of their way to create suffering for others. This isn't the way it's supposed to work.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Snyder justified this by calling it a cost-cutting measure, to reign in health insurance costs to employees??!! That's outrageous! Why not deny ethnic minorities health insurance to save costs, then? That's crazy! But he vetoed a similar bill that would apply the law to university employees? Does that mean that gay marriage is allowed to university employees? This is a crazy situation.
It seems like humans just look for ways to create suffering for each other, going out of their way to create suffering for others. This isn't the way it's supposed to work.
There is confusion about that topic, some people say it applies to universities and some say it doesn't. BUT the reason that universities being excluded is important is because we have several top ranking schools here that pitched a fit over it saying that they would lose some great professors because of this. Obviously, a brilliant homosexual professor would NOT take a job from a state whose benefits did not cover his/her same-sex partner. The students suffer on this one as well. They don't seem to care about that on the grade school level though since there isn't such a big profit incentive.
Fascinating! Utterly fascinating! Thanks, ZG! So the university system put their foot down, and gave the guv something to think about! Discrimination is bad for academia, and bad for the economy, not to mention being bad for moral integrity.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I feel like I've hijacked this thread... the point here shouldn't be that Michigan sucks... it's that Washington is very likely awesome. Go Washington!
The mormons are entitled to their views in so far as they do not harm others.
There are so many versions of 'the' scriptures - many of them clearly state that homosexuality is a deviation from God's law - on par with murder, rape, theft etc - until the scriptures are changed, the issue remains - marriage is a union under God, by God - he's in there somewhere... its central to the whole marriage thing.
If their version of God forbids homosexual union then how can they allow gay marriage? surely its their duty to oppose it? can we blame them?
Saying that a civil parnership makes you a second class citizen misses the point - its just inviting conflict - its almost as if its not important whether you are married or not, its like a cry for acceptance within the context of a debate about marriage...
Tired of the middle ground??!! Its the best ground of all!!
I like @person's suggestion still - civil parnerships for all and then go and find any religious organisation that will sign you in... personally, I'd want it ordained by the Jedi... but sadly they dont accept gays either...
I started typing and went to make a cup of tea and we'd moved on to Snyder already... ah well - if it helps, move to England - civil partnerships are on par with marriage
- if it helps, move to England - civil partnerships are on par with marriage
Canada, too, I think, but why should people have to emigrate and abandon their country just to get married? Not to mention they'd be unemployed if they were to emigrate (if they could afford to)--it's insane!
marriage is a union under God, by God - he's in there somewhere... its central to the whole marriage thing.
Why is it central to the whole marriage thing? God is irrelevant, unless you're religious. Otherwise, marriages by justices of the Peace would also be somehow 2nd-class, but they're not. God has nothing to do with marriage. God is a Fig-Newton of people's imagination.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Why is it central to the whole marriage thing? God is irrelevant, unless you're religious. Otherwise, marriages by justices of the Peace would also be somehow 2nd-class, but they're not. God has nothing to do with marriage. God is a Fig-Newton of people's imagination.
This statement and further reflection on @Raven's previous post makes me realize that the word marriage now has a secular meaning too. I guess in my solution what I'm proposing is to give the religious right the word and the institution of marriage but keep the actuality of it for non religious and gay people. We could call it a union or a bonding or something more romantic than civil union.
There are really a lot of issues here. The first concern many gay people have is that, as is, they do not have the right to certain types of legal contracts and legal associations, "insurance" and "benefits" rights, and inheritance rights as straight people. Many of us feel that civil unions solve that type of problem. Another concern many gay people have is the issue of personal freedom, and that only gay marriage answers that issue. And then there is another aspect of the solution -- that the government should only sanction civil unions (for gay and straight couples), while churches would sanction weddings.
Interestingly, one American who felt that the government shouldn't be involved at all with the question of marriage was...Barry Goldwater.
This is the challenge in ruling humanity - it is impossible reaching a consensus!! Everyone wants something different and they interpret things differently - so what is the solution... we could sit here all day and argue that God has no place in religion - we can burn crosses, kick ass, write petitions, raise a million dollars? damn... just like that!! hahaha - it gets you no where...
We are all dying... its coming... I even have a little poem on it...
The ultimate aim seems to me to be equality of rights - that is legal rights - therefore whatever pathetic freedoms are afforded to us are afforded to us equally... @person's solution best realises this - one state of union called whatever you want to call it... in fact lets move it away from marriage and civil partnerships and call it "Whoopee"... everyone will, if they choose, enter the state of Whoopee.. it will be the only legally recognised institution of union... if you dont want it then you get nowt in the eyes of the law - then anyone is free to be married if they want and they can choose to call that a marriage or a civil partnership - it makes no difference to the status of the legal Whoopee...
If your church wont marry you - trust me, walk up the road and start donating to the other church that has less of a congregation - God will work in mysterious ways and you will be married with a choir, an organ and probably even a dove...
If we let the religious crowd patent the word "marriage", then those who go to the Justice of the Peace won't be "married", which is a little crazy. What will we call them, "unified"? Why are we toadying to the Religious Right, anyway? :grumble:
Hey, I have an idea: the religious crowd can call it "matrimony", as in: "holy matrimony". But as Zero suggests, the phenomenon of coupling officialized and sanctioned by a higher authority, be it the State or the Church, could have a single referent--both could be covered by the descriptive: "marriage", "married". Secular folks can call their marriage ceremonies whatever they want. A rose by any name still smells sweet.
I never understood why government had any place in marriage in the first place. Marriage is personal, cultural and/or religious--all three of which are legally separated from government.
Tax law is not more important that separation of church and state.
Will the government recognize a Hmong marriage, for example? Hmong are recent immigrants to the west and have an ancient traditional religion which has no "church." It is no more lawful to deny gays married status than it is to deny Hmongs married status.
"Marriage" is an English word, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Judeo-Christianity has no more claim to the word "marriage" than any other culture.
I never understood why government had any place in marriage in the first place. Marriage is personal, cultural and/or religious--all three of which are legally separated from government.
Tax law is not more important that separation of church and state.
Will the government recognize a Hmong marriage, for example? Hmong are recent immigrants to the west and have an ancient traditional religion which has no "church." It is no more lawful to deny gays married status than it is to deny Hmongs married status.
"Marriage" is an English word, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Judeo-Christianity has no more claim to the word "marriage" than any other culture.
Whether or not that is all valid is almost irrelevant, because it does not deal with the way it currently is. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I just can't see what that's got to do with solving the issue.
I think the good point that you raise is that tax law is not more important than separation or church and state. However, I think what you have here is...well sort of like this morning when I was vacuuming and the chord got all tangled up. I could see how tangled it was...I just couldn't immediately see how to untangle it. And, although I don't know the correct phrase, there is a concept in law that after laws have stood for some certain period of time, they gain credibility. It really is a legal entanglement.
And, although I don't know the correct phrase, there is a concept in law that after laws have stood for some certain period of time, they gain credibility. It really is a legal entanglement.
I agree, Vinlyn...one would have to go state-by-state, look at each's definitions, and begin the arduous detangling process based on what was found. We'll get there, eventually--of that I have no doubt.
I do wish there could be a sweeping federal proclamation to the effect that the state has no business determining the criteria for unions. As long as the state requires any couple to sign binding documents, for tax purposes, that should be the end of state involvement.
There's simply no reason a gay couple couldn't sign documents which bind them in the same way as non-gay couples, for tax purposes.
And, although I don't know the correct phrase, there is a concept in law that after laws have stood for some certain period of time, they gain credibility. It really is a legal entanglement.
I agree, Vinlyn...one would have to go state-by-state, look at each's definitions, and begin the arduous detangling process based on what was found. We'll get there, eventually--of that I have no doubt.
I do wish there could be a sweeping federal proclamation to the effect that the state has no business determining the criteria for unions. As long as the state requires any couple to sign binding documents, for tax purposes, that should be the end of state involvement.
There's simply no reason a gay couple couldn't sign documents which bind them in the same way as non-gay couples, for tax purposes.
Well, that gets to the crux of states' rights versus federal rights. And in this situation that may be a stalemate.
I guess for me, the sticking point is why the church gets to have "marriage" and anyone else gets to have a "civil union," in @person's idea. Do I think civil union is less than a marriage? Not totally - I have hetero friends who did the JP thing, and yes I know they are just as married as everyone else, church or JP.
It bothers me immeasurably though that this is the issue. Church groups want freedom to do whatever they want under protection of religion, or they scream persecution. However, they seem to have no problem persecuting other people.
Why should some people get to have a "marriage" and other people get to have a "civil union," based on whether or not they believe in the invisible sky wizard? (Or rather, in this case, whether or not the invisible sky wizard accepts them and what they do with their genitalia.) I do think it's chopped liver. I think it's another way for the church to give a big F-you to those who don't worship as they do.
Let people get married in a church if they want. Let people get married by a JP. Let them do both, plus a ship captain for good luck. Why does the church get to decide who deserves "marriage" and who doesn't?
There was a time people of mixed races couldn't get married either - now most people look back in amazement at how narrow and prejudiced that was.
I also just really have a hard time understanding why people care so much about gay marriage that they move to block it from happening. Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married. If your holy book says different, fine: no gay marriage for YOU, no sir. (No abortions or evolution, either.) With all the hate and war and destruction around us, why isn't love celebrated? Why is equality (real equality) denied to people based on their sexual orientation? Why, in 2012, is this still an issue? Why do people care so much about whether or not someone is gay? I can think of a lot better ways to judge someone than by whom they shag at the end of the day.
By the way - no one has ever told my hetero friends who got hitched at the JP that they have a "civil union." They are MARRIED, and they have a MARRIAGE.
By the way - no one has ever told my hetero friends who got hitched at the JP that they have a "civil union." They are MARRIED, and they have a MARRIAGE.
Raven, I looked this up, I had the same confusion you did, and my thinking/posting has been the same as yours. JP marriages are marriages. This "civil union" thing (see link I posted earlier to a Wiki article) is a new status some states have dreamed up to stick gay couples with, to give them a few crumbs, but not the whole cake.
"Civil union" is not equivalent to JP weddings. "Civil union" is defined variously around the world, but in the US it's been defined narrowly as a union that doesn't convey the benefits of legal marriage, such as being able to claim a spouse on workplace health insurance, social security benefits, and so forth.
Everyone should be able to get "married". If the Church is so hung up about this that they don't want to give their deity-of-choice's sanction to the marriage, they can convey "holy matrimony" on approved applicants. Which would only show how silly their issue is.
I remember when I was younger I had a toy that my cousin really liked - I also liked it but I remember everytime he came over he would run to my room and take this toy - we would fight and argue and try to share but I couldnt get my head around him running to my room and taking this toy and then keeping it from me!! It became kind of a tradition... who gets the toy!!
I pondered on this... I hardly played with the toy when he wasnt around - let him have it... I had lots of other toys and he seemed to really like it so I would play with it enough when he wasnt there and then I left it for him for when he came around.
next time he came over he got the toy and instead of my trying to have what he had, I took another toy and sought to play with him instead - after a little bit, he abandoned the original toy and was after the one in my hand again... taught me something very important about my cousin and later in life about myself and life too...
Comments
I've meet very religious gays who would love to get married to a church.
If you want a very good explanation of why gays don't want civil unions read this:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=23780
From my favorite youtubers and from Seattle:
But for those that think that I am overly sensationalizing... My home state of MI recently wrote into their own law the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" and made a move to ban "domestic partner benefits" from those within government agencies. Only those working for the government in MI can have their same-sex partners covered as "domestic partners"(unmarried partners that can refer to heterosexuals as well) and I am sad to report that MI succeeded. It was a clear and direct move aimed to target same-sex couples and the ACLU is fighting it as we speak.
"Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners."
From: Here.
This is the kind of distinctive crap I see coming our way if we gain civil unions instead of marriage. By having two separate terms, it is easy to single out homosexual couples.
Separate =/= Equal.
The problem seems to be that civil union is defined differently by different countries and even different States. In some places, civil union = marriage, with all the rights and benefits. In other places, it's officialese for domestic partnership.
In two pages of inquiring, nobody could explain this simple thing?
edit: wow, I'm sorry to hear that, ZG, about the new MI law. It's like it used to be for mixed-race couples: marriage not allowed. : (
Another reason for people to move to Canada. How sad.
You know, sometimes humanity evolves, kicking and screaming. You have to drag it, kicking and screaming, into a more evolved state.
It seems like humans just look for ways to create suffering for each other, going out of their way to create suffering for others. This isn't the way it's supposed to work.
There are so many versions of 'the' scriptures - many of them clearly state that homosexuality is a deviation from God's law - on par with murder, rape, theft etc - until the scriptures are changed, the issue remains - marriage is a union under God, by God - he's in there somewhere... its central to the whole marriage thing.
If their version of God forbids homosexual union then how can they allow gay marriage? surely its their duty to oppose it? can we blame them?
Saying that a civil parnership makes you a second class citizen misses the point - its just inviting conflict - its almost as if its not important whether you are married or not, its like a cry for acceptance within the context of a debate about marriage...
Tired of the middle ground??!! Its the best ground of all!!
I like @person's suggestion still - civil parnerships for all and then go and find any religious organisation that will sign you in... personally, I'd want it ordained by the Jedi... but sadly they dont accept gays either...
The first concern many gay people have is that, as is, they do not have the right to certain types of legal contracts and legal associations, "insurance" and "benefits" rights, and inheritance rights as straight people. Many of us feel that civil unions solve that type of problem.
Another concern many gay people have is the issue of personal freedom, and that only gay marriage answers that issue.
And then there is another aspect of the solution -- that the government should only sanction civil unions (for gay and straight couples), while churches would sanction weddings.
Interestingly, one American who felt that the government shouldn't be involved at all with the question of marriage was...Barry Goldwater.
We are all dying... its coming... I even have a little poem on it...
The ultimate aim seems to me to be equality of rights - that is legal rights - therefore whatever pathetic freedoms are afforded to us are afforded to us equally... @person's solution best realises this - one state of union called whatever you want to call it... in fact lets move it away from marriage and civil partnerships and call it "Whoopee"... everyone will, if they choose, enter the state of Whoopee.. it will be the only legally recognised institution of union... if you dont want it then you get nowt in the eyes of the law - then anyone is free to be married if they want and they can choose to call that a marriage or a civil partnership - it makes no difference to the status of the legal Whoopee...
If your church wont marry you - trust me, walk up the road and start donating to the other church that has less of a congregation - God will work in mysterious ways and you will be married with a choir, an organ and probably even a dove...
Job's a good'un no?
Cant we just give @person a medal now?
Hey, I have an idea: the religious crowd can call it "matrimony", as in: "holy matrimony". But as Zero suggests, the phenomenon of coupling officialized and sanctioned by a higher authority, be it the State or the Church, could have a single referent--both could be covered by the descriptive: "marriage", "married". Secular folks can call their marriage ceremonies whatever they want. A rose by any name still smells sweet.
OK, can we go home now? :rolleyes:
Tax law is not more important that separation of church and state.
Will the government recognize a Hmong marriage, for example? Hmong are recent immigrants to the west and have an ancient traditional religion which has no "church." It is no more lawful to deny gays married status than it is to deny Hmongs married status.
"Marriage" is an English word, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Judeo-Christianity has no more claim to the word "marriage" than any other culture.
I think the good point that you raise is that tax law is not more important than separation or church and state. However, I think what you have here is...well sort of like this morning when I was vacuuming and the chord got all tangled up. I could see how tangled it was...I just couldn't immediately see how to untangle it. And, although I don't know the correct phrase, there is a concept in law that after laws have stood for some certain period of time, they gain credibility. It really is a legal entanglement.
I do wish there could be a sweeping federal proclamation to the effect that the state has no business determining the criteria for unions. As long as the state requires any couple to sign binding documents, for tax purposes, that should be the end of state involvement.
There's simply no reason a gay couple couldn't sign documents which bind them in the same way as non-gay couples, for tax purposes.
It bothers me immeasurably though that this is the issue. Church groups want freedom to do whatever they want under protection of religion, or they scream persecution. However, they seem to have no problem persecuting other people.
Why should some people get to have a "marriage" and other people get to have a "civil union," based on whether or not they believe in the invisible sky wizard? (Or rather, in this case, whether or not the invisible sky wizard accepts them and what they do with their genitalia.) I do think it's chopped liver. I think it's another way for the church to give a big F-you to those who don't worship as they do.
Let people get married in a church if they want. Let people get married by a JP. Let them do both, plus a ship captain for good luck. Why does the church get to decide who deserves "marriage" and who doesn't?
There was a time people of mixed races couldn't get married either - now most people look back in amazement at how narrow and prejudiced that was.
I also just really have a hard time understanding why people care so much about gay marriage that they move to block it from happening. Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married. If your holy book says different, fine: no gay marriage for YOU, no sir. (No abortions or evolution, either.) With all the hate and war and destruction around us, why isn't love celebrated? Why is equality (real equality) denied to people based on their sexual orientation? Why, in 2012, is this still an issue? Why do people care so much about whether or not someone is gay? I can think of a lot better ways to judge someone than by whom they shag at the end of the day.
"Civil union" is not equivalent to JP weddings. "Civil union" is defined variously around the world, but in the US it's been defined narrowly as a union that doesn't convey the benefits of legal marriage, such as being able to claim a spouse on workplace health insurance, social security benefits, and so forth.
Everyone should be able to get "married". If the Church is so hung up about this that they don't want to give their deity-of-choice's sanction to the marriage, they can convey "holy matrimony" on approved applicants. Which would only show how silly their issue is.
I pondered on this... I hardly played with the toy when he wasnt around - let him have it... I had lots of other toys and he seemed to really like it so I would play with it enough when he wasnt there and then I left it for him for when he came around.
next time he came over he got the toy and instead of my trying to have what he had, I took another toy and sought to play with him instead - after a little bit, he abandoned the original toy and was after the one in my hand again... taught me something very important about my cousin and later in life about myself and life too...