I was just wondering if in those states that refuse to call a gay marriage "marriage", or in the federal sense, would they be willing or open to pass a law that grants a special type of union that would have the same status as married heterosexual couples, meaning that the legal contract of marriage is effectively applied to the relationship, with all the benefits relating to taxation, spousal rights, inheritance rights, divorce benefits, etc (as these rights currently do not apply to unmarried common-law partners and any other kinds of so-called civil unions). In my personal opinion, if the conservatives are willing to go that far and make up some mechanism in which to make gay couples' lives easier when they visit hospitals or collect benefits that are available to the heteros, a marriage in all ways except in the naming, it's still a good first step. We could take that for now and continue to push for more. At least when you push for a relationship status equal in mechanics to what marriage is, the conservatives can't use their current excuse which is hiding behind the semantics of words. And at least this way the proper support is given to those couples that need it immediately. We should be open to a more pragmatic approach to the problem and not allow people to continue to suffer the harsh reality just because we can't get the desired laws written up immediately. Gay couples everywhere are already suffering being unable to visit their partners in hospitals, being unable to inherit their partner's assets when they pass away, etc. I get the impression though that most of the vocal mainstream gay voices are fighting for an ideal that may not come in another 5 to 10 years and wouldn't first compromise on a short-term solution in the name of their pride. Correct me if I am wrong.
Personally, I doubt it. Even states that have civil unions/domestic partnerships rarely give all the same rights and responsibilities to those unions. For the republicans base its still seen as rewarding a "destructive lifestyle", or pushing the gay "agenda". And a lot of moderates have hangups about the "equal" status IMHO. Agreed, even if it is demeaning. Though hospital visitation is guaranteed now, in the vast majority of hospitals. I don't have any relation to any of the mainstream voices - so I can't really say. But there seems to be, in my experience, a push at all levels(city, state, federal) to get some sort of civil union or partnership even though they won't afford the same rights and benefits. Yet, even when thats the case, its not uncommon to see voters over turn these laws by referendum.
Believe me, we are generally content with passing civil unions. However, Conservatives, who believe that we should have marriage, also fight us on this front because they are blatantly homophobic. Awful to hear, but true. So I think that humanizing gays, my term of changing opinions of the stereotype, to make more people empathic toward us is the step we need to take. Which is why character's like Kurt from Glee (I'm partial to Kurt, deal with it) make such a big deal nowadays. We are not only the token friend to the hetero main characters anymore. We can draw the same amount of pathos and win people over.
I am of the opinion that a separate Civil Union law would be unconstitutional as it would violate the 14th amendment. A law much apply to everyone unless the separation represents a legitimate government interest. Protecting traditional marriage and Christian ideals is not a legitimate government interest. So no I would not compromise and accept a separate, but equal law. As such a law would be unconstitutional. So on principle I would be opposed such a law even if it would benefit me. There are only four options. 1. Apply marriage laws to everyone. 2. Apply marriage laws to no one. 3. Prove that the current marriage laws represent a legitimate government interest. 4. Remove the marriage laws and apply civil union laws to every one. Number 3 was the whole point of the Prop 8 case, whose defense failed miserably. I don't want to take this thread off course so I won't bring up my thoughts on the options.
You bring up an interesting point of view which I smack my head for having forgotten about the history of "equal but separate" in regards to the segregation that existed before the civil rights movement. But you could still get around the constitutionality by writing a law in which you would define first that two people are allowed to declare a union between them, what this contract entails. Then only at the very end mention that in the case of blah blah blah it is called blah, in the case of blah blah it is called so on and so forth. This way, the law is clearly establishing and protecting rights, while the naming convention for the exact legal mechanism or substance in a non-malicious way is merely a glossary attached to the substance of the legislation.
How will that make anyone happier? Both myself and my sister want to get married, both of us to men. It doesn't make my life any better if she can't marry either. There are quite a few US states that constitutionally bar any recognition of the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, whether marriage or civil partnerships, so this compromise clearly isn't going down well there. Rather than go through them, check out this Wikipedia map.
This seemed relevant to me. Lawmakers consider civil unions http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b8cd104a-f0ca-5546-a12f-b045f0e5dbd7.html
Somethings I've thought about since I made this thread: From an academic(?) point of view, civil unions are unconstitutional, because: 1. From a rights argument, two consenting adults have the right to enter into union to the exclusion of all others. It would be unconstitutional to disallow a union based on race, sexual orientation, or religion. 2. The constitution gives the legislature the legal jurisdiction to make laws regarding marriage, but it does not give the legislature jurisdiction to make laws regarding civil unions, hence the legislature cannot legally make laws respecting the union of two consenting adults other than that of marriage. So either way, a marriage between any two consenting adults to the exclusion of all others is valid because of either point 1, and/or 2. So once two people manage to get married somehow, they should already be legally married. The fact that the executive branch does not follow the law is another matter entirely. And the harder part is to find a civil authority to perform the marriage and thus attaining the married status. But say if you go to a jurisdiction that performs these marriages, then it is theoretically valid for the purpose of recognition in the United States.
in a perfect world everyone would be able to marry who they would like, but honestly if civil union is what the government can agree on, its not perfect but better than what a lot of states have. i shouldnt be talking since i live in mass and one day when i want to marry, i can here
Honestly, I think the problem started when a religious ceremony suddenly gave people legal rights. Those things should be separate. Everyone (gay or straight) should have the rights that married people have, only it should be called a civil union for everyone. If you want to be "married" let that be a personal thing that has nothing to do with your rights. That way, everyone gets what they want. People who want to be together in the eyes of the law, get a civil union and then they can also have a ceremony or whatever if they want that for their family/friends/church etc.
I don't care what it's called, the only thing is I think marriage gives something like 1,100 or something benefits and a lot of them are absent from civil unions. So if they were exactly equivalent people might stop fighting over it. But then people would just argue that if they bothered making two terms that do the exact same thing, why not just let everyone get married in the first place. *shrug*
