Gay Marriage? or Civil Unions?

Question

Let's take the religous aspect out of this question....I DON"T CARE if you think homosexuality is right or wrong!!!!! Should we as a people be denying gay amercian citizen the same rights and protections as straight ones have? Even if it's not called marraige? Does the Pledge not say 'With Liberty and Justice for ALL?" Or all who are like you?

Answer 1

There are two problems with having separate statuses with different names.

First, there is the question of terminology. If two monogamous legally-registered couples have the same legal rights, but one couple gets them through "marriage" and the other through "civil unions", what's the difference?

Well, here's the difference. I am a man. If I married a woman, I could go to any other of the US states or any US federal territory, as well as many other countries, and all of my legal rights and privileges automatically carry over. If I'm married in one state, I'm married in every state. That's what the Constitution guarantees with the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the Privileges and Immunities clauses.

But, if I was 'civil-unionized' [what is the verb form of 'civil union'?] to another man, then as soon as I leave my state, in 47 other states we have no rights whatsoever. So, just because of the gender of my partner, we'd lose our legal rights and protections.

Even the states that allow homosexual unions aren't reciprocal. A 'marriage' in Massachusetts doesn't convert to being a 'Civil Union' in Connecticut or Vermont. Nor does a 'Registered Partnership' in California or New Jersey.

Because they are called different things, they are not portable, and don't have any of the same constitutional protections that 'marriage' gets. That's the difference in terminology.

Second, it's pure gender-based discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

If a gay man and a lesbian woman want to get married, the law cannot stop them. So, the laws banning same-sex marriage don't stop homosexuals from getting married at all.

And if two straight women, both of whom plan to have sex only with men, want to get married for the legal benefits and to provide a more secure home for their children, they are prevented. So, it's not about acting in the best interests of the children. If one single woman (straight or gay) can raise her own child, then I can't imagine how two good mothers (both straight in our example) are somehow worse than one parent.

Now, there is a solution. Eliminate marriage for everyone as a legal status.

If conservatives really want a uniform definition of marriage, and think the terms shouldn't really be that important, then I've got something that will make everyone happy. How about a Constitutional Amendment that (1) eliminates the term "marriage" from any secular laws, making "marriage" exclusively a religious term, and (2) converts all of what used to be called 'marriages' to "civil unions", and (3) allows any two consenting adults to register their civil union with the state, and get all state benefits that would otherwise be provided to people who were married (as that term had been used).

Any two consenting adults who want to get a civil union can do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether incest should or should not be allowed, so let's just say not allowed for purposes of this proposal.

If people want to get married, that's between them and their church. The "sanctity of marriage" is thus forever protected against government meddling, since "marriage" no longer has any legal meaning under the law. And people now no longer treated differently based on the gender of who they want to marry, since everyone 'only' gets a civil union, as far as the law is concerned.

Answer 2

which civil right have the lost, because of race ? religion ?
nationality? guess I never saw sexual perversion as a protected class of people, So where is this limit

do you believe

Cousins should marry

Brother and Sister

Mom and son

if not why don't you, what about thier rights,

Next what about age, why is the 12 year old having thier civil rights violated because of age ( a protected class)

The government does for the protection of society have a right to restrict all sorts of freedoms as long as they don't violate a real constititional protection.

Marriage is a states issue and the federal government has no right interfering at any level. ( to support or to deny)
And the courts also don't have a right to make new law.

The marriage of homosexual can also be done rightly, if the states pass laws to allow it. so if not vote of the people, or laws written by it officials, that is the only way.

But when given a choice, the people in every state where it has come to a vote has denied marriage for anyone but one man and one women.

So they have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex anytime they want.

Answer 3

There was an artist that tried to make a living by creating his own currency. He went to stores and convinced them to accept his 'money'. Those who did actually made a profit, because his one of kind art work was more valuable than the Federal Reserve Notes. The Treasury tried to stop him, but was unsucessful.

I personally wouldn't take his currency, but if a merchant does, what do I care. Suppose the mayor of San Francisco decided this was a good way to promote the arts. He not only makes it legal but pays city employees in art money. When challenges come, the art money side finds friendly judges to rule people have to accept it.

It's a silly analogy, but marriage is a lot like currency. It only works because people trust in it. Voters all over the country have considered this and rationally or not they have rejected gay marriage.

Looking at marriage on a practical basis clearly relationships between a man and a woman require special considerations that don't exist with same sex couples. Marriage is a type of contract where the parties are not equal. (If you don't understand this take a biology course.) If there was gay marriage, heterosexual couples would need to invent a new type of contract.

Do people in other types of relationships need special protections? Sure. Consider them and enact the appropriate alternatives.

Answer 4

From the point of the state a civil union is a contract. All marriages by the state should be considered civil contracts. They are one in the same. If a marriage is performed and the individuals want it to be sanctioned by God then so be it. But it is impossible for the state to say a wedding is "of GOD". If it was otherwise then why would a divorce not invoke God? Instead the divorce is a pure civil contract being broke by the agreeing parties. There should be no limitation by the state to agreements between consenting adults as to their relationships. The state should just recognize the contract as binding in the terms agreed to. Simple, to the point, and devoid of superstition.

Answer 5

No, no, no, Coragryph. It is not pure gender-discrimination. That is ridiculous.Gender discrimination means that a woman (as an individual) is being treated worse than a man (as an individual) because of her gender. Or that all women are being treated worse than all men. Our nation's bans on same-sex marriage (common law, statutory law, or constitutional law) treat women and men exactly the same way. No one may get married to someone of the same sex. This rule treats both sexes exactly the same way.

The bans on same-sex marriage do not discriminate on the basis of sex, they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. A "hypothetical" example of two heterosexual women wanting to get married to one another -- like the example you were talking about -- is a deceptive little game that confuses the issue. If two women walk into a registrar's office where marriage licences are issued and asked for one so they can get married to each other, the first thought on everyone's mind would be that they are lesbians.

This society has always discriminated against homosexuality and that includes the issue of same-sex marriage. Don't call that discrimination something that it isn't. To do so is just plain deceptive. And this society has always discriminated against homosexuality for at least three reasons -- 1) moral beliefs learned from religious doctrine, 2) the non-religious understanding that the human race needs to reproduce and homosexual behavior doesn't contribute to that, and 3) just plain ol' "homophobia."

Answer 6

i know you dont care if gay marriage is right or wrong because of religion, but your asking people to forget their religion beliefs and look outside the box. if someone has a strong hold on their religion, they wont go with your views. i dont think gay marriage is right. the point of being a male is to have a penis, the point of being female is having a vagina. and the point of them both getting together and having sex is to have a child. since im not strong in religion i can say no, its not right to be a man and disrupt the chain by marrying another man. liberty and justice means fairness in courts with trials and have a peaceful life and right as a citizen. when you start touching subjects like marriage, all liberty and justice is thrown out. sorry. this country was founded on religion, it will always (no matter what they say) keep looking back in the bible and other religions to keep "liberty and justice" and all the amendments.

Answer 7

All Americans deserve the same LEGAL rights as other Americans. The comparison of Gay's to people who wanna marry animals or brothers and sisters is ludicrous and you know it. Those things are illegal because it is medically dangerous. There is nothing medical dangerous about homosexuals. From a man who has personally held the price of freedom i his hands all american deserve the same legal rights, no matter what you call it.
And for the record homosexuality is against my religion but there it is it is against MY religion and unlike some i dont think ALL must follow MY religion thats what its called MY religion. To deny american's rights that other americans have on any grounds other than they commited a crime makes you a bigot and a coward.

Cpl Rush
US Army Combat Medic

Answer 8

I say get the government out of the marriage business completely. Marriage is something that has to do with God, or community, or people in love, not the state.

If people want to give insurance benefits to each other, or the power to make medical decisions for each other, or anything else, let them draw up a contract. I don't care if they are a man in woman in love, a brother and a sister, a priest and a rabbi, or whatever. There's no need for a special category for this kind of thing.

Answer 9

Civil Unions seem like a fair solution. That way, gays have the same legal rights as a married couple (as they ought to in a just government), but marriage is still between a man and a woman.

Answer 10

A strong binding union is a blessing, and no one should be denied it.
The whack-jobs are using the word "marriage" as a religious stick to attack the idea, probably out of fear.
Letting any religion have any legal power of law is a disaster, but protecting every religion is a necessity in the U.S. so they can say whatever they want.
We don't have to listen.