• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Brace yourself - same sex marriage legal

Octopodes are known to become homosexual as are penguins as was recently reported in the news; in a German zoo, if I remember correctly.
 
What's the legal difference between a couple being "married" and a couple having a "civil union"?

If there is any legal difference other than people just fussing over terminology?

Does a civil union allow for the same medical/health and legal benefits as a marriage?
Same tax and divorce issues? Same allowances for death benefits, and medical issues like powers of attorney and such?

If there's no difference from a legal/paper/tax standpoint between a Jane and John marriage, or a Steve and John union then I say who cares what you call it.
 
That's like saying, "All the white people go on the bus over there, and all the black people go on that bus over there, which we'll call a coach."

Put 'em together, for crying out loud - we're all people here.

Cheers
 
Martin said:
That's like saying, "All the white people go on the bus over there, and all the black people go on that bus over there, which we'll call a coach."

Put 'em together, for crying out loud - we're all people here.
Click to expand...
Had not thought of it like that yet. Some of the people I work with feel like you can't make a comparison to race and sexuality though. They insist, "You have to choose to be homosexual. You don't choose your race." You choose whether or not to have sex with your wife or husband too. You could choose celibacy. It doesn't mean you still wouldn't be inclined to be attracted to certain people.

I was still wondering the same thing Motokid is. To me, marriage is, at it's a core, a religious concept, one that bled over into the legal system for lack of a better phrase. As long as it's got the same legal implications, civil unions would be a good first step. Racial equality here took over 100 years even after the slaves were freed. The separate but equal facitilities were still in use until the '60s, and you still had Jim Crow laws.

I can't find anyone that can't tell me how two people having sex and living together is a bad thing for society or how it encroaches on anyone else's rights. If it doesn't do either of those, how could it be a sin? This is one of the reasons I'm not a church-goer anymore. I did see that study that was put out about civil unions in the Netherlands, maybe? Can't remember, but I remember seeing late that it was debunked. In my opinion, homosexuality is exactly what it is: sexual preference. Some people prefer certain positions. Some people prefer partners with certain traits.
 
i don't think that homosexuals choose to be gay. i think they are gay. that is how they are wired. and i think that there are some people who are experimental and play for both teams. ellen degeneres and anne heche are an example of these 2 groups coming together( no pun intended).
the point that gets overlooked is that it shouldn't matter. the same as what we do for a living, or what we look like, or what we eat, or how we worship, or who we sleep with, these things should never detract from how we treat each other as human beings.
 
I don't think "gay" is a choice. Who would choose that? I don't see it as a conscience alternative. I think people are (for the lack of a better way of stating this) born gay. Maybe it's a preprogrammed thing in somebodies gene pool?

Any way. Like Ritalinkid says. It's a first step, and if it meets your wants and needs to every extent except for the terminology, I say take it with a smile, and in a few more years the terminology will probably change too.
 
RitalinKid said:
Had not thought of it like that yet. Some of the people I work with feel like you can't make a comparison to race and sexuality though. They insist, "You have to choose to be homosexual. You don't choose your race."
Click to expand...
Could you please ask them when you make that choice, because my I'm really bad with women and think I perhaps would have better luck with men. Is there sort of a transition phase?

I don't really see any reason why homosexuals shouldn't marry or anything else for that matter. I guess it's just a matter of time before homosexuals marrying is a common thing, then people will just have to find something else to whine about.

As far as I know, in Denmark homosexuals can't marry in church, but the church has always been a couple of centuries behind. Besides most people in Denmark don't go to church unless there is some special occasion like a wedding. Church is not really an important part of their lives here, so why should it matter when they marry? I don't understand people.
 
I've never been asked to prove I'm married. I've never been asked to show my marriage licence. Call your union with whoever, whatever you'd like to call it. Is anybody really going to correct a gay couple that says they're married by exclaiming "No you're not, you were joined by civil union, that's completely different than being married." ???? I don't see that happening.

Where, and when would the need to define your relationship be effected by having to state, or prove you are married verses being joined by civil union?

What difference does the wording on a piece of paper make?
 
A lot, to the people being refused the same rights as you and I have.

Is anybody really going to correct a gay couple that says they're married by exclaiming "No you're not, you were joined by civil union, that's completely different than being married." ???? I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...
No. What they can (and probably will) say is: "You can't be married, because that's against the law.".

Cheers
 
What rights will be refused to a couple that's gone through the civil union process, that they would have by going through the marriage process?
 
Motokid said:
What difference does the wording on a piece of paper make?
Click to expand...
The difference is in knowing that you are being treated differently because the person you love happens to be the same sex.

Having said that, however, doesn't change the fact that in many jurisdictions even civil unions are denied to homosexuals. It's an absolute travesty that doesn't make sense to general western values. We say that we're all about freedoms and what-not, and yet we deny *some* people the right to express their love for one-another.

I don't understand the reservations people have about gay marriage at all. I think a lot of it has to do with people's fears that if homosexuals can marry then they can adopt/have kids - which is a whole other quandry of 'what's best for the children'. Frankly I can't think of a better way to raise tolerance of homosexuality than for a generation of kids to grow up knowing that having a mum and a dad is the same as two mums or two dads. Heck, there are so many crappy crappy heterosexual parents out there, how can you say that parents in a homosexual relationship would be a bad influence or whatever. What a load of bollocks!

The other argument is that this will open the door to other 'alternative' forms of marriage, such as people marrying animals or people having multiple spouses. In the former case - and I know this was raised earlier - you're talking about two different species marrying. This is quite simply ridiculous as one can never know if a non-human is consenting to a relationship. It's about as likely to happen as legalising the marriage of children to adults - there is an age of 'consent' for a reason, and any non-human species does not have the capacity to consent to something - especially something as personal as marriage. Does all this sound completely ridiculous? Well, it should.

As to the argument of homosexual marriage openning the door to multiple spouses... this makes very little sense in this context either. Homosexual marriage is still a union of two people. Just because you can marry anyone you choose doesn't mean that you can choose more than one. The basic tacits behind marriage - to be faithful to one person, and to love, honour and cherish that person - still apply. The issues behind multiple spouse marriage is a whole other debate and shouldn't influence this decision at all.

Oh, I could go on... but I'll leave my rant right here.
 
to pick up where kookamoor left off...polygamy already happens and it is nowhere near as hot a topic as gay marriage. and in polygamous marriages you see a lot of underage girls, being wed to older men. this to me is upsetting, and wrong. i guess the some old guy married to a bunch of teenagers is overlooked because at least the teens are female.
 
I still don't understand the legal difference between the two types of relationships.

My wife and I are never asked if we're married. We could be "living in sin".
We could be what they used to call "common law married" by having lived together for more than 7 years or whatever it was. We could have been married in a civil cerimony, or in full religious regallia(spelling). When is that ever an issue? When does it ever come up that you have to prove what type of relationship you have?

A couple is a couple is a couple. Where does the specific wording of the union of two people change anything?

A gay couple will be desciminated against regardless of the wording of their union based on their being gay. Have black people stopped being descriminated aganst by whites simply because they are legally declared equal to everybody else in this world?
 
Beyond the question of law, there is a spiritual dimension to marriage that many people hold sacred. Some of those people are gay, and they want their union to be blessed and sacred and viewed as such by others.

You might not feel that way. I don't feel that way. But many gays are also religious and social conservatives (believe it or not) and want to be married in the eyes of their religions and their gods.

That's a really important distinction for many people. I accept that it is a real difference and one that should be addressed. To say 'you can have a civil union and that should suffice' ignores this basic desire of gay people to be truly married in the way that they wish to be.
 
As for the legal difference, civil unions are not recognized outside the state in which they are granted; marriages are.

Civil unions confer none of the federal tax positions (regarding filing of income tax, inheritance benefits, shared retirement benefits, taxes on gifts, etc.

Partners in a civil union cannot make claims for shared child support or divorce.

They also are not conferred any immigration rights for their partners.

Those are some very big differences.

In other words, recognizing any rights conferred in a civil union is optional and is blanketly denied by the federal government and other states.
 
"As for the legal difference, civil unions are not recognized outside the state in which they are granted; marriages are.

Civil unions confer none of the federal tax positions (regarding filing of income tax, inheritance benefits, shared retirement benefits, taxes on gifts, etc.

Partners in a civil union cannot make claims for shared child support or divorce.

They also are not conferred any immigration rights for their partners.

Those are some very big differences.

In other words, recognizing any rights conferred in a civil union is optional and is blanketly denied by the federal government and other states."

Then what the hell does anybody gain by a civil union? Christ...no wonder people are pissed-off. A civil union means almost nothing then if that's the case.

oh, I guess they get rights to partners medical benefits? Is that all it means?

edit: http://www.vermontcivilunion.com/union/faq.html

Vermont has a pretty good description of thier law. They do get tax breaks like a married couple in Vermont, plus lots of other like wise benefits.
 
Motokid said:
"As for the legal difference, civil unions are not recognized outside the state in which they are granted; marriages are.

Civil unions confer none of the federal tax positions (regarding filing of income tax, inheritance benefits, shared retirement benefits, taxes on gifts, etc.

Partners in a civil union cannot make claims for shared child support or divorce.

They also are not conferred any immigration rights for their partners.

Those are some very big differences.

In other words, recognizing any rights conferred in a civil union is optional and is blanketly denied by the federal government and other states."

Then what the hell does anybody gain by a civil union? Christ...no wonder people are pissed-off. A civil union means almost nothing then if that's the case.

oh, I guess they get rights to partners medical benefits? Is that all it means?

edit: http://www.vermontcivilunion.com/union/faq.html

Vermont has a pretty good description of thier law. They do get tax breaks like a married couple in Vermont, plus lots of other like wise benefits.
Click to expand...

They only get those benefits for state-level taxation. Does not apply to IRS or Social Security or anything at the federal level, which of course is the bulk of taxation. The point is, recognition of the union is only by that state and only applies to state laws for state residents. If they move to another state, it means nothing at all. '
 
yeah...it's a baby step alright, but one in the right direction.

Obviously there's more than basic terminology going on here.

If gays are seeking the same "religious" status in terms of marriage, and recognition from the church, thats going to be one long-ass journey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top