2006-07-30 09:28:14 · 7 answers · asked by mitas111801 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
I would like to marry whoever I love. This is a right I have as a child of God and an American. I will fight for equal marriage rights, not civil unions.
From PFLAG:
Why can’t gay couples have the same benefits but not call it marriage?
As we learned in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, there is no such thing as "separate but equal." Providing most of the rights and responsibilities but not allowing the use of the word "marriage" clearly promotes separate and unequal status for GLBT citizens. This is unworkable at a practical level and almost certainly unconstitutional, based on Supreme Court precedent. Civil marriage is an intricate web of legal, economic and practical protections and responsibilities, from sharing club memberships to the adoption of children to interstate travel, to tax issues, to immigration. Everyone instantly knows what marriage confers, and a couple should have no confusion about this when dealing with issues like critical care, immigration, or parenting. Who will make the decisions on which rights same-sex couples should have, and how can they be made fairly? State domestic partnerships or civil unions are not portable across state lines and do not confer the 1,138 federal rights given by marriage. Even if states and the federal government could construct an entire parallel family code for the GLBT community, which is unlikely, a nationwide domestic partnership program would involve the government stigmatizing one group of citizens as "unfit" for marriage. Our country rightly decided a long time ago that separate is not equal, and there is no reason to turn back the clock.
2006-07-30 09:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by MindStorm 6 · 13⤊ 4⤋
If civil union were given the same recognition in Federal law as marriages, I would have no problems. The trouble with second class status is that, just as in apartheid or "separate but equal" schools, the powerful end up dictating to the disempowered what rights they may partake of and what they cannot.
2006-07-30 09:52:52 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The name's a red hearing at this point. Equality recognized under the law is the bigger step. In time, the separate label can be dealt with. Besides, marriage in the biblical sense is a religious issue that should be the purview of religions not governments. A marriage license is a legal contract recognized by the law. Any name for it will do.
2006-07-30 09:47:15 · answer #3 · answered by Alex62 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I remember when Vermont instituted civil unions, and the Right got upset about that. Virginia's got a proposed amendment that will ban anything even remotely marriage-like, even some paperwork like powers of attorneys. So I don't think we need to settle just to placate haters.
2006-07-30 09:36:22 · answer #4 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you not heard the term "separate but equal"? It really doesn't hold up too well when compared to our constitution. I've been married to my husband for almost two years and have witnessed no signs of the collapse of society that was predicted - other than those instigated by our dear President.
2006-07-30 10:42:06 · answer #5 · answered by Speedo Inspector 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's still separate but not equal. I agree with watergoddess...thanks for your informative answer!
2006-07-30 10:06:21 · answer #6 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
watergoddess has it exactly right ...nice one
2006-07-30 10:28:06 · answer #7 · answered by Bearable 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋