Would you support a Federal law that made Civil unions legal in all 50 states?

[Erika1487]

In light of the New York law a friend of mine within the GOP was talking to me recently about the idea of a Federal law that made Civil unions legal in all 50 states. This got me thinking.....
Why is it most people assume there is an intangible inferior aspect inherent to civil union? Sadly, it seems many marriages are inferior. Marriages and Civil Unions are not about public education. I consider both a personal declaration of love and committment between two people. If the legalities and rights are equal then why not embrace the definition. The two words, civil and union are certainly lovely words. I totally support civil union between people of any sex. To me, it is a matter of sematics which defines the situation. As long as the same rights are applied, the GLTB community should be proud of the different name for their partnership. Get a civil union license. Be a wonderful GLTB couple in a committed relationship, raising great kids and have a wonderful civil union together. Shouldn't the focus be more on a federal civil union law so that civil unions are legally acknowledged thoughout our country?

Now before everyone calls me a traitor & "Aunt Erika" for wanting to institute a new era of GLTB Crow laws......Let me point this out a sweeping 50 state Federal law on civil unions would be a landmark victory for the community at large.

[needsum]

no I don't see it as a victory. Why? because it creates a distinct and seperate "class" of citizen in doing so. its basically saying "marriage is good for everyone but gay people." That is EXACTLY what is being fought against here. I'm not gay. I'm happily married with three beautiful kids. However I see no reason whatsoever that two men, or two women, shouldn't be allowed to feel exactly the same way I do. Marriage is a choice between two people who love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. if the same rights are applied, as you suggest, then what is the difference at that point in just letting everyone be MARRIED and be done with this bullshit once and for all?

[macklefreak]

I support civil unions 100% but I have some preconditions. I believe that unions between gay men should not enjoy the same tax breaks because neither spouse can produce a child. While they can certainly adopt and I support their right to exercise this, since such action is generated outside of their normal sex acts meaning they never accidentally produce children only through deliberate planning and application, I don't think they should get child tax credits. Furthermore the earning potential of two men is greater than that of a heterosexual couple statistically so by giving them tax breaks Wed be contributing to the wealth gap which overtime could have damaging externalities the institution of marriage for everybody straight or gay

[KelticForce1349]

I think it would be terrific. Fuck the name, just give me peace and harmony.

[MdR Dave]

I support civil unions 100% but I have some preconditions. While they can certainly adopt and I support their right to exercise this, since such action is generated outside of their normal sex acts meaning they never accidentally produce children only through deliberate planning and application, I don't think they should get child tax credits. Furthermore the earning potential of two men is greater than that of a heterosexual couple statistically so by giving them tax breaks Wed be contributing to the wealth gap which overtime could have damaging externalities the institution of marriage for everybody straight or gay

Tax breaks for parents aren't a reward for successful conception.

Lesbians can have a child naturally- donor, affair, whatever- and plenty of MF couples end up with kids this way. Would you remove tax breaks from couples in which the man is not the biological father?

and the wealth gap is far too complicated to attribute simply to men earning more than women.

Separate but equal is not equal and preconditions erode 100% to zero.

[bte]

In light of the New York law a friend of mine within the GOP was talking to me recently about the idea of a Federal law that made Civil unions legal in all 50 states. This got me thinking.....
Why is it most people assume there is an intangible inferior aspect inherent to civil union? Sadly, it seems many marriages are inferior. Marriages and Civil Unions are not about public education. I consider both a personal declaration of love and committment between two people. If the legalities and rights are equal then why not embrace the definition. The two words, civil and union are certainly lovely words. I totally support civil union between people of any sex. To me, it is a matter of sematics which defines the situation. As long as the same rights are applied, the GLTB community should be proud of the different name for their partnership. Get a civil union license. Be a wonderful GLTB couple in a committed relationship, raising great kids and have a wonderful civil union together. Shouldn't the focus be more on a federal civil union law so that civil unions are legally acknowledged thoughout our country?

Now before everyone calls me a traitor & "Aunt Erika" for wanting to institute a new era of GLTB Crow laws......Let me point this out a sweeping 50 state Federal law on civil unions would be a landmark victory for the community at large.

If civil unions will be equal to marriage, then why not just let gay people get married? Seems to me like you are trying to downplay marriage, but at the same time saying that people in the GLBT shouldn't get married. They should just accept civil unions instead of being afforded the same rights as everyone else. Kind of like the notion "separate but equal".

[bte]

I support civil unions 100% but I have some preconditions. I believe that unions between gay men should not enjoy the same tax breaks because neither spouse can produce a child. While they can certainly adopt and I support their right to exercise this, since such action is generated outside of their normal sex acts meaning they never accidentally produce children only through deliberate planning and application, I don't think they should get child tax credits. Furthermore the earning potential of two men is greater than that of a heterosexual couple statistically so by giving them tax breaks Wed be contributing to the wealth gap which overtime could have damaging externalities the institution of marriage for everybody straight or gay

Gay women can't produce a child either. I never seen two women magically produce a child outside of "deliberate planning and application."

[Prospero]

Not my business to comment on the specifics for the US - but why can't a gay couple be given the same rights as any couple under the law - if they go through the formalities of getting wed?

[MdR Dave]

Erika, do you support this?

Would you have supported special water fountains for black people? They were just as good.

Take a good look at the agenda. A good look.

You're not in politics. You're in conservative propaganda.

[macklefreak]

Any union with a gg should have tax benefits because rearing children is expensive and are necessary for the prosperity of nations. Economically speaking, 2 gay men together are at an advantage over all other couples and produce no positive externalities for the economy in the form of creating future workers. Furthermore, they do not b ear the brunt of maternity. Many heterosexual couples struggle to pay for their children and most people who adopt have more wealth and disposable income than others statistically speaking. For all these reasons I maintain that two men in marriage shouldn't get ALL tax benefits that others get. Yes its discrimination but we discriminate against groups of people every day for the benefit of society. Ages discrimination via minors, wealth discrimination via progressive income tax, as a single Guy I pay more taxes than if I were married, affirmative action is discrimination but so is nepotism and preferential treatment of children of alumni at universities, we discriminate against healthy people vs handicapped people. Why can't I park close to shit? I can go on and on