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

[nonnonnon]

I understand what you're saying. if unions were in all states, then it would be a matter of getting civil unions to become marriages?

[bte]

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

Do you favor tax benefits for hetero couples who are unable to have kids?

[MrF]

I prefer that any two people can get married. This treats everyone the same. It's a fairness issue. I cannot understand the objection to gay marriage; but I suppose it's primarily a religious cultural issue. I see no need for the concept of "Civil union".

As for making Federal law, I believe in States rights and think laws like this are best decided on a State level. There are some cases in the Civil Rights era where Federal imposition on States led to social progress. However, gay marriage is inevitable. It's supported by the majority of young people. So it may be just as well to let the generations turn over and have the issue decided at the State level, as is already happening.

[macklefreak]

Do you favor tax benefits for hetero couples who are unable to have kids?

I know ur not going to like my answer lol in theory I do not support tax breaks for couples tha cannot produce children. But since science can never say with 100% confidence that a couple can't reproduced I favor them.especially if women are involved because they make less than men statistically

[amberskyi]

thank god i can get legally married as a woman

[macklefreak]

thank god i can get legally married as a woman

Your really hot...ur body is perfect. If I'm ever near the big apple you can DEFINITELY have some of my dough babygirl :-*

[Erika1487]

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".

I bellieve that given the public opinion on the GLTB marraige situation the voting public would not vote for it in a majority of states. I do think that civil unions would be a good "middle ground" and is much more palatable to the voting public. It could also be a platform in which Civil unions could be "grandfathered in" if the law where to change.

[iamdrgonzo]

You do not need governments permission to exercise your basic human rights.

As free men and women you may associate with whomever you choose whenever you choose without the need of state sanction or fear of "offical" reprisal.

Special rights and laws which benefit one segment of society over another only serve to divide people further rather than bring them closer. We have 40 years of empirical data that shows the US Civil Rights Movement and LBJ's Great Society served to fracture society further not make things "equal".

Straight, gay, bi, Tgirl, black, white, brown, red, tan whatever, whomever we all have the same human rights the only differnce that I can see is some of us use them while others do not.

It is like Wizard of OZ the Scare Crow already had brains, the Tin-man a heart and the Lion courage.

You already have all the rights you need.

Like the old saying goes you don't use them you lose them.

[hard4janira]

In general I am against the Federal Government overreaching (like they always do) and telling what states to do. So I think each state should have the right to decide what marriage is and so on. I think the will of the people is what matters here -California vote it down and New York voted it in, so I think the wishes of the citizens in both states should be respected.

However, being the politician that I am I would vote to allow the Federal Government to define marriage / unions if they passed a constitutional amendment balancing the budget..... so there....

[Nowhere]

Obama is a pussy, so this ain't ever happening. Nice idea, though. I think we should do everything dutch-style, making marriage NOT a legal institution, only a religious one. Everyone has to get civil unions, making it 100% fair, and all the religious perspective gets put on a personal level, where it belongs.

But, as I said, it's just theoretical. Obama only defends non-republican ideas when there's such an overwhelming majority that they can't argue it either, which is the only reason repealing DADT got by. There's no chance in hell such a spineless fool will have the "audacity" to "change" anything else he promised or alluded to.

[Erika1487]

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.

Doing something good for the GLTB community is conservative propaganda:confused: Civil unions would be a major step forward in many states including my own.

[MdR Dave]

Doing something good for the GLTB community is conservative propaganda:confused: Civil unions would be a major step forward in many states including my own.

I guess I'm not the type to be placated. Anything less than equality is inequality.

I don't have a stake in this politically or socially- it won't affect me personally either way. I just feel that, as a human, compromise on this issue isn't a major step forward but abject failure.

To restate my question in a different way: how would you feel about "colored" water fountains if you were black in the mid 20th century?

Accepting anything less than what is owed makes us complicit in our own betrayal.

[BellaBellucci]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

~BB~

[MdR Dave]

You do not need governments permission to exercise your basic human rights.

As free men and women you may associate with whomever you choose whenever you choose without the need of state sanction or fear of "offical" reprisal.

Special rights and laws which benefit one segment of society over another only serve to divide people further rather than bring them closer. We have 40 years of empirical data that shows the US Civil Rights Movement and LBJ's Great Society served to fracture society further not make things "equal".

You already have all the rights you need.

There are some states where you can still get arrested for "sodomy" - oral and anal sex, which has been so named as to imply an affront to a god. I'd hardly call that freedom.

The "empirical data" argument fails because what we don't have is 40 years of evidence of an America in which Jim Crow got to live for comparison. Hard to compare something that is to something that wasn't.

If everyone had the rights they need they wouldn't be fighting for them.

[Erika1487]

I guess I'm not the type to be placated. Anything less than equality is inequality.

I don't have a stake in this politically or socially- it won't affect me personally either way. I just feel that, as a human, compromise on this issue isn't a major step forward but abject failure.

To restate my question in a different way: how would you feel about "colored" water fountains if you were black in the mid 20th century?

Accepting anything less than what is owed makes us complicit in our own betrayal.

I just feel that, as a human, compromise on this issue isn't a major step forward but abject failure.
Well sir with all due resepect I think your wrong. Something is better than nothing. If a federal Civil union law passed it could open doors not close them.

[MdR Dave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

~BB~

Well put.

I always like to throw in Marbury v. Madison as the money shot.

[BellaBellucci]

I just feel that, as a human, compromise on this issue isn't a major step forward but abject failure.
Well sir with all due resepect I think your wrong. Something is better than nothing. If a federal Civil union law passed it could open doors not close them.

Ahh... the 'It's Wet, Isn't It?' Defense.

http://www.cultureblues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/mama-fratelli-225x300.jpg


Well put.

I always like to throw in Marbury v. Madison as the money shot.

That's sexy! :jerkoff

~BB~

[MdR Dave]

I just feel that, as a human, compromise on this issue isn't a major step forward but abject failure.
Well sir with all due resepect I think your wrong. Something is better than nothing. If a federal Civil union law passed it could open doors not close them.

LOL! When folks say " with all due respect" it usually means with none!

I get your stance, Erika, but I would exhort you to fight for more.

And once something is defined and codified it becomes harder to change. The Founders compromised on "all men are created equal" and then gave the plantation the 3/5ths of a person definition, to boot.

One hundred years, a civil war, and another hundred years to see real change.

Small foot, or big door?

[onmyknees]

Absolutely Not.....and it has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage or civil unions. The Federal Government can take my property, levy taxes, and incarcerate me for not doing so, send me to war, declare war, fuck me over at the airport, tell my local school what they should be teaching,, regulate college loans, tell me the puddle in my back yard is now a wetland, make me use inferior light bulbs, pick and choose what highway projects should be built through the FHA, regulate commerce, banking, set interest rates, decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn't, cut bad international trade deals, prevent companies from moving to another state, regulate health care, immigration, speed limits, firearms, energy policy, pick winners and losers ( GE not paying any corporate income taxes) dictate to counties and towns how much housing must be section 8 and where it has to be built, build bridges to nowhere, pick and choose the laws they decide to enforce.....and I could go on for another several hundred words. Get the picture Erika? Look at the fucking mess we're in now.....pick any issue, and the Feds will be at the center of a fucking mess. They have more power than ever intended. Read the Federalist Papers. The last thing we need to do is give them more authority. The more authority you allow them to have over you, the less freedom you'll ultimately enjoy. It's a States issue. I understand you're trying to level a great compromise here, but if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson 1789

[Erika1487]

LOL! When folks say " with all due respect" it usually means with none!

I get your stance, Erika, but I would exhort you to fight for more.

And once something is defined and codified it becomes harder to change. The Founders compromised on "all men are created equal" and then gave the plantation the 3/5ths of a person definition, to boot.

One hundred years, a civil war, and another hundred years to see real change.

Small foot, or big door?

Wow that is a bit of an over reach:hide-1:
Are you comparing the GOP as plantation owners?? WTF??

[Erika1487]

Absolutely Not.....and it has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage or civil unions. The Federal Government can take my property, levy taxes, and incarcerate me for not doing so, send me to war, declare war, fuck me over at the airport, tell my local school what they should be teaching,, regulate college loans, tell me the puddle in my back yard is now a wetland, make me use inferior light bulbs, pick and choose what highway projects should be built through the FHA, regulate commerce, banking, set interest rates, decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn't, cut bad international trade deals, prevent companies from moving to another state, regulate health care, immigration, speed limits, firearms, energy policy, pick winners and losers ( GE not paying any corporate income taxes) dictate to counties and towns how much housing must be section 8 and where it has to be built, build bridges to nowhere, pick and choose the laws they decide to enforce.....and I could go on for another several hundred words. Get the picture Erika? Look at the fucking mess we're in now.....pick any issue, and the Feds will be at the center of a fucking mess. They have more power than ever intended. Read the Federalist Papers. The last thing we need to do is give them more authority. The more authority you allow them to have over you, the less freedom you'll ultimately enjoy. It's a States issue. I understand you're trying to level a great compromise here, but if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson 1789
if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up. :iagree::Bowdown:

I have always believed in states rights to decide these things, but I look at my state and the politics I helped create and spread (2004 Ohio Issue 1) and want to make amends in my own way. I have alot of respect for state leaders, but I also know that sometimes it takes an act of congress to make things right.

[onmyknees]

if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up. :iagree::Bowdown:

I have always believed in states rights to decide these things, but I look at my state and the politics I helped create and spread (2004 Ohio Issue 1) and want to make amends in my own way. I have alot of respect for state leaders, but I also know that sometimes it takes an act of congress to make things right.

Sorry...we part ways here. You can't tell me one decesion they've made in the last 10 years that "made things right" If you're for States Rights on issues such as these........, you can't make exceptions to suit you personally. That's precisely the problem.
One more Jefferson for ya....


"Most bad government has grown out of too much government. "

[MdR Dave]

Wow that is a bit of an over reach:hide-1:
Are you comparing the GOP as plantation owners?? WTF??

Not at all, Erika. But good job ignoring the point.

It's called an example, and one I thought quite germane.

Keep fighting half the battle- you'll get there, almost, eventually.

[NYBURBS]

There are some states where you can still get arrested for "sodomy" - oral and anal sex, which has been so named as to imply an affront to a god. I'd hardly call that freedom.


Negative. There are some states with it still on the books, but they can not be enforced. A supreme court case out of Texas, in I believe the late 80's, struck those down.

[MdR Dave]

Negative. There are some states with it still on the books, but they can not be enforced. A supreme court case out of Texas, in I believe the late 80's, struck those down.
There is a high more recent case, incidental to a drug bust.

But overturned on appeal or not, the refuted statement was that officials can't meddle in what we choose to do. I'd call arrest and incarceration some serious meddling, regardless of what years of court appearances and untold lawyer fees eventually accomplish.

[NYBURBS]

Absolutely Not.....and it has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage or civil unions. The Federal Government can take my property, levy taxes, and incarcerate me for not doing so, send me to war, declare war, fuck me over at the airport, tell my local school what they should be teaching,, regulate college loans, tell me the puddle in my back yard is now a wetland, make me use inferior light bulbs, pick and choose what highway projects should be built through the FHA, regulate commerce, banking, set interest rates, decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn't, cut bad international trade deals, prevent companies from moving to another state, regulate health care, immigration, speed limits, firearms, energy policy, pick winners and losers ( GE not paying any corporate income taxes) dictate to counties and towns how much housing must be section 8 and where it has to be built, build bridges to nowhere, pick and choose the laws they decide to enforce.....and I could go on for another several hundred words. Get the picture Erika? Look at the fucking mess we're in now.....pick any issue, and the Feds will be at the center of a fucking mess. They have more power than ever intended. Read the Federalist Papers. The last thing we need to do is give them more authority. The more authority you allow them to have over you, the less freedom you'll ultimately enjoy. It's a States issue. I understand you're trying to level a great compromise here, but if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson 1789

Actually, while I agree with most of what you posted, I want to point a couple of things out.

First, the federal government has the power to say what records states have to recognize from other states (i.e., marriage licenses), so in that context I think it would be appropriate for them to repeal DOMA.

Second, (and this really isn't addressed to onmyknees in particular) I don't think the government, state or federal, should be involved in marriages on the front end. If two people, three people, w/e want to get married than good for them, so long as they are all consenting adults. Have a court process to take care of the divorce and other marital contract issues, but stay out of it aside from that. Of course, that would really require a constitutional amendment.

[Erika1487]

Sorry...we part ways here. You can't tell me one decesion they've made in the last 10 years that "made things right" If you're for States Rights on issues such as these........, you can't make exceptions to suit you personally. That's precisely the problem.
One more Jefferson for ya....


"Most bad government has grown out of too much government. "

Well I guess we will agree to disagree on this one.

[Yvonne183]

Actually, while I agree with most of what you posted, I want to point a couple of things out.

First, the federal government has the power to say what records states have to recognize from other states (i.e., marriage licenses), so in that context I think it would be appropriate for them to repeal DOMA.

Second, (and this really isn't addressed to onmyknees in particular) I don't think the government, state or federal, should be involved in marriages on the front end. If two people, three people, w/e want to get married than good for them, so long as they are all consenting adults. Have a court process to take care of the divorce and other marital contract issues, but stay out of it aside from that. Of course, that would really require a constitutional amendment.

I agree with that the Gov't on any level should not be involved with marriage.

I also feel that it's wrong for the Feds to say what states laws should be followed by states that don't like another states laws. It should be up to each individual state to decide what laws they follow. For instance a drivers license or a marriage license would be nationally recognized yet a gun license would not and the gun ownership is actually written in the constitution(bill of rights) while a drivers license is not.

Ps- I voted no.

[iamdrgonzo]

There are some states where you can still get arrested for "sodomy" - oral and anal sex, which has been so named as to imply an affront to a god. I'd hardly call that freedom.


That is precisely the point all states suffer from a fatal flaw which is called hypocrisy.

What compelling interests does the state have when it places itself in the middle of private dealings of consenting adults, supposedly free people?

Freedom in the US is just another word for a well regulated and conditioned peoples incessantly filling out forms and asking permission of the state in order to live.


The "empirical data" argument fails because what we don't have is 40 years of evidence of an America in which Jim Crow got to live for comparison. Hard to compare something that is to something that wasn't.

Your right Jim Crow wasn't "alive" for 40 years it was more like 100 years.

I gather you haven't visited any inner cities or Appalachia recently?

They aren't looking for water fountains rather it's basic medical coverage, food and shelter.

While LBJ's Great Society scheme and the civil rights movement may have helped a few the "help" was done a the expense of the many and after 40 plus years society in the US is more fractured than ever.



If everyone had the rights they need they wouldn't be fighting for them.

Unalienable Rights are not granted nor taken away by the state.

When the state uses it's coercive powers to deny human beings their unalienable Rights the only way to achieve freedom is to fight as has been the case throughout human history.

From the US Declaration of Independence:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

In short the moral of my story is you already have all the rights you need.

"Fuck the government"

~ Anthony Hopkins' character from The Legends of the Fall, Colonel Ludlow

[onmyknees]

Actually, while I agree with most of what you posted, I want to point a couple of things out.

First, the federal government has the power to say what records states have to recognize from other states (i.e., marriage licenses), so in that context I think it would be appropriate for them to repeal DOMA.

Second, (and this really isn't addressed to onmyknees in particular) I don't think the government, state or federal, should be involved in marriages on the front end. If two people, three people, w/e want to get married than good for them, so long as they are all consenting adults. Have a court process to take care of the divorce and other marital contract issues, but stay out of it aside from that. Of course, that would really require a constitutional amendment.


Burbs...I disagree that the Federal Government can tell Idaho to recognize a NY marriage. If anything, it's an unresolved question that would cause a constitutional crisis similar to health care where 26 States are bringing suit against the federal government for it's broad definition of the commerce clause in forcing citizens to purchase health care.

I'm loath to reference the NY Times for anything, but they may have this one right....for a change !
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28doma.html

[MdR Dave]

That is precisely the point all states suffer from a fatal flaw which is called hypocrisy.
Unalienable Rights are not granted nor taken away by the state.

From the US Declaration of Independence

I see what you're saying, just not how it fits. There is no US from mid 60s to now for comparison against a post civil rights US. You can't address what the difference is because there is no scenario on which the last 40 years was different.

And make no mistake: the State is powerful and getting stronger.

The Declaration is a beautiful and important document but not part of our system of government.

Edit: in the original they were "inalienable" rights. Even this sacred screed is subject to editing, apparently.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

Why would anyone support a federal law going into effect?
hahahahahahahahahahaha

[hippifried]

Actually, while I agree with most of what you posted, I want to point a couple of things out.

First, the federal government has the power to say what records states have to recognize from other states (i.e., marriage licenses), so in that context I think it would be appropriate for them to repeal DOMA.

Second, (and this really isn't addressed to onmyknees in particular) I don't think the government, state or federal, should be involved in marriages on the front end. If two people, three people, w/e want to get married than good for them, so long as they are all consenting adults. Have a court process to take care of the divorce and other marital contract issues, but stay out of it aside from that. Of course, that would really require a constitutional amendment.
First: I thought DOMA already got struck down. Last I heard, the the Solicitor General's office wasn't going to appeal. Boener was making some noise about an appeal from the House, but that died on the vine. (he has enough problems of his own, excluding the fake tan) Isn't there some kind of time limit on the appeals process? It was such a dumb-ass idea in the first place, it was bound to get slapped down. It's just pure hubris for Congress to claim the power to exempt a specific idiot-ology from a pre-existing Constitutional constraint.

If I'm right about DOMA, doesn't that force various States to honor the marriage contract from other States? All that has to happen is for a couple from NY or CA to move to Nebraska or wherever, & we know how bad everybody wants to do that. :) If Nevada pulls the stick out of their ass, with all their instant nuptuals & no residency requirements, it could throw the whole country into a tizzy. That's okay. somebody can make a mint building new heart attack wards for the fundi-fanatics. :party:

Second: I agree. Something like 99% of marriage law is pre-supposing breakage of the contract. I've always thought that the idea of a contract being null unless it's written by a third party, non-negotiable, & subject to cange any time at the whim of the third party was pretty lame to start with. I don't think it really makes a difference which government entity takes responsibility for marriage regulation. right now it's just a hodge-podge, & the contract can change drastically just by the parties stepping over an imaginary line. Maybe national consistency would be better, but then again with the insanity in DC, that imaginary line is still an option.

[Ben]

Gay marriage.... Not civil unions.

[hippifried]

The Declaration is a beautiful and important document but not part of our system of government.
I have to disagree. This...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...is the fundamental principle that the nation is founded upon. The ideas that rights are innate & that government is subserviant to the governed is what we're all about. The Declaration of Independence is the only official document that states the founding principal clearly. Even the 9th Amendment is vague, & merely a clarification in the codified law that points directly back to the principle. It's been cited multiple times by the SCOTUS in rendering decisions. We sometimes are forced to specifically recognize & enumerate some of them in the codified & common law, but rights are in no way a grant from the government. We were the first to officially declare that, & you still don't see it too often anywhere else. It's what makes us unique. The Declaration of Independence wasn't just a break with British rule. It was a break from the entire European concept of "rule" in favor of governance. Without that, there was really no reason for us to seek independence in the first place.

[MdR Dave]

I have to disagree. This......is the fundamental principle that the nation is founded upon. The ideas that rights are innate & that government is subserviant to the governed is what we're all about. The Declaration of Independence is the only official document that states the founding principal clearly.

True, but a tautology.

What law or institution did it specifically create? None.

You can't even say it created America- it took a war and Continental Congress to do that. And it could have been done without any formal declaration, which was really our justification.

Don't get me wrong, it is my favorite national document. But from the start the noblest of ideas contained in it were perverted by baser interests.

And, again, it created no law or institution.

[MdR Dave]

Gay marriage.... Not civil unions.

Right on. Don't accept half a measure.

[onmyknees]

First: I thought DOMA already got struck down. Last I heard, the the Solicitor General's office wasn't going to appeal. Boener was making some noise about an appeal from the House, but that died on the vine. (he has enough problems of his own, excluding the fake tan) Isn't there some kind of time limit on the appeals process? It was such a dumb-ass idea in the first place, it was bound to get slapped down. It's just pure hubris for Congress to claim the power to exempt a specific idiot-ology from a pre-existing Constitutional constraint.

If I'm right about DOMA, doesn't that force various States to honor the marriage contract from other States? All that has to happen is for a couple from NY or CA to move to Nebraska or wherever, & we know how bad everybody wants to do that. :) If Nevada pulls the stick out of their ass, with all their instant nuptuals & no residency requirements, it could throw the whole country into a tizzy. That's okay. somebody can make a mint building new heart attack wards for the fundi-fanatics. :party:

Second: I agree. Something like 99% of marriage law is pre-supposing breakage of the contract. I've always thought that the idea of a contract being null unless it's written by a third party, non-negotiable, & subject to cange any time at the whim of the third party was pretty lame to start with. I don't think it really makes a difference which government entity takes responsibility for marriage regulation. right now it's just a hodge-podge, & the contract can change drastically just by the parties stepping over an imaginary line. Maybe national consistency would be better, but then again with the insanity in DC, that imaginary line is still an option.

Again...out of touch and in a smokey fog. Did you spend any time reading the NY Times article..or was it time to run out for another 6 pack of Billy Boy beer?

A quick tutorial....DOMA was passed by wide margins in Congress and signed into law by liberal democrat Bill Clinton. What Obama did is what Obama always does....straddle the fence. Play both sides...He informed his justice department to stop defending DOMA in court as the law of the land. In other words...one branch of the Federal Government has decided that it no longer feels like enforcing the law of the land. It's irrelevant your position on DOMA, but those are the facts....so you may think it's unconstitutional, and cloud the issue with your amateur attorney interpretation of contract law but you'd be mistaken. You may feel that's a good idea ( not enforcing DOMA) but it leaves everyone in limbo. It's exactly what Obama has done with immigration...Ask Arizona....Failing to enforce it does not equate to repeal.....so where does that leave DOMA? Good question....It either has to be repealed by Congress and signed by the President....or the Supreme Court must rule it unconstitutional. Here's a question for all you Obama sycophants.....If he was so pro gay marriage why didn't he have the Congress introduce a bill during the lame duck session when he had huge majorities and once and for all kill DOMA?...... Ponder that batman.

[onmyknees]

True, but a tautology.

What law or institution did it specifically create? None.

You can't even say it created America- it took a war and Continental Congress to do that. And it could have been done without any formal declaration, which was really our justification.

Don't get me wrong, it is my favorite national document. But from the start the noblest of ideas contained in it were perverted by baser interests.

And, again, it created no law or institution.

I agree it did not create law, but to say ( as you did in an earlier post) it has no foundation in the governence of the country...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).


I'd say that sentence is the foundation of all documents to follow. But I appreciate your affection for the Declaration.

[MdR Dave]

I agree it did not create law, but to say ( as you did in an earlier post) it has no foundation in the governence of the country...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).


I'd say that sentence is the foundation of all documents to follow. But I appreciate your affection for the Declaration.


Might as well attribute everything that follows to John Locke, though as originally stated it was "life, liberty and the pursuit of property". But Locke never claimed that blacks were only 3/5ths equal.
That was all American.

It was all progression of enlightenment ideas and reflection of the times. Civil unions make reflect the times but I'd hardly consider it truly progressive.

Perversely, it's the ideas expressed in the Declaration that would make me want true equality in marriage, though I am not planning on ever getting married to a guy.

And come the revolution ( the real one) the phrase "alter or abolish" will be stitched onto our flag.

[MdR Dave]

Should we work on the debt ceiling now?

I think we have as good a shot as anyone else in making sense of it.

And, it appears, a better chance of rational discourse than Congress!

You guys are awesome.

[hard4janira]

Absolutely Not.....and it has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage or civil unions. The Federal Government can take my property, levy taxes, and incarcerate me for not doing so, send me to war, declare war, fuck me over at the airport, tell my local school what they should be teaching,, regulate college loans, tell me the puddle in my back yard is now a wetland, make me use inferior light bulbs, pick and choose what highway projects should be built through the FHA, regulate commerce, banking, set interest rates, decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn't, cut bad international trade deals, prevent companies from moving to another state, regulate health care, immigration, speed limits, firearms, energy policy, pick winners and losers ( GE not paying any corporate income taxes) dictate to counties and towns how much housing must be section 8 and where it has to be built, build bridges to nowhere, pick and choose the laws they decide to enforce.....and I could go on for another several hundred words. Get the picture Erika? Look at the fucking mess we're in now.....pick any issue, and the Feds will be at the center of a fucking mess. They have more power than ever intended. Read the Federalist Papers. The last thing we need to do is give them more authority. The more authority you allow them to have over you, the less freedom you'll ultimately enjoy. It's a States issue. I understand you're trying to level a great compromise here, but if the federal government is involved...they'll fuck it up.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson 1789

:Bowdown:


Genius at work here......


Getting back to marriage for a sec... A lot of people are taking this position that marriage is a natual right of some kind and that government (local, state, or federal) should have no say whatseover in who get's 'married'. That's all fine and dandy, and if you really believe that then you don't *need* a certificate from the state affirming your marriage, right? . You can just have a ceremony and say your vows and make your promises to your God (whatever that may be) and then move in with your loved one and live out your days. Hell, you can do that NOW in the US and nobody would give a fuck. Perfect, right?

Ah... not so fast. What happens after you've been living with your 'spouse' for five years and you've finally come to the conclusion that this dumb fuck isn't worth a damn? Smokes weed all day, getting fat, lazy.... basically he's a useless piece of shit (which all your friends were telling you in the first place before you married the schmuck). Hey, it's been 5 years and you are ready to move on and find somebody else but YOU'VE got some serious shit invested in this relationship. The title to the house is in your name and you paid for most of the furniture (he bought a decorative bong...). Bottom line is you want to get a fair shake when you stand before the judge and tell him what jackoff your 'spouse' is.......

Well now that little 'certificate' from the state is starting to seem a more important now isn't it? It would be nice to have some officially sanctioned evidence by a governing body that validates the consecration of your vows, if nothing else so you can keep your shit. I'm just scratching the surface here - there are many things made easier by simply having a marriage certificate.

This isn't anything new - they knew this HUNDREDS of years ago which is why marriage certificates issued by a government (or, if you were in a more rural area it was recorded by a Minister of the Gospel and filed with the county probate court or magistrate court).

Obvioulsy, if you are a government body issuing certificates you have to define (in clear legal terms) exactly what it is you are giving out. Seems simple enough, and hence 'marriage' was defined (by the States, the Federal Goverment had bigger fish to fry at this time, like clearing out the west of Injuns). Of course, 150 years ago it seemed PRETTY NATURAL for everybody that marriage would be defined as taking place between a man and a woman. Hell, I'm sure it didn't even raise any eyebrows or garner as much as a giggle when it was signed into law. Hell, who would want to marry another fella? Or worse, who would want to marry thier mule? Can't be issuing certificates to trappers butt-fucking 'lulu-bell' the pack mule.... And chicks with dicks? Don't get me started...

So anyways, here we are and these definitions of marriage that everybody is so up in arms about have been around for a long, long time - and nobody has had a problem with it until the last 10 or so years really.

[BluegrassCat]

:Bowdown:


Genius at work here......


Getting back to marriage for a sec... A lot of people are taking this position that marriage is a natual right of some kind and that government (local, state, or federal) should have no say whatseover in who get's 'married'. That's all fine and dandy, and if you really believe that then you don't *need* a certificate from the state affirming your marriage, right? . You can just have a ceremony and say your vows and make your promises to your God (whatever that may be) and then move in with your loved one and live out your days. Hell, you can do that NOW in the US and nobody would give a fuck. Perfect, right?

Ah... not so fast. What happens after you've been living with your 'spouse' for five years and you've finally come to the conclusion that this dumb fuck isn't worth a damn? Smokes weed all day, getting fat, lazy.... basically he's a useless piece of shit (which all your friends were telling you in the first place before you married the schmuck). Hey, it's been 5 years and you are ready to move on and find somebody else but YOU'VE got some serious shit invested in this relationship. The title to the house is in your name and you paid for most of the furniture (he bought a decorative bong...). Bottom line is you want to get a fair shake when you stand before the judge and tell him what jackoff your 'spouse' is.......

Well now that little 'certificate' from the state is starting to seem a more important now isn't it? It would be nice to have some officially sanctioned evidence by a governing body that validates the consecration of your vows, if nothing else so you can keep your shit. I'm just scratching the surface here - there are many things made easier by simply having a marriage certificate.

This isn't anything new - they knew this HUNDREDS of years ago which is why marriage certificates issued by a government (or, if you were in a more rural area it was recorded by a Minister of the Gospel and filed with the county probate court or magistrate court).

Obvioulsy, if you are a government body issuing certificates you have to define (in clear legal terms) exactly what it is you are giving out. Seems simple enough, and hence 'marriage' was defined (by the States, the Federal Goverment had bigger fish to fry at this time, like clearing out the west of Injuns). Of course, 150 years ago it seemed PRETTY NATURAL for everybody that marriage would be defined as taking place between a man and a woman. Hell, I'm sure it didn't even raise any eyebrows or garner as much as a giggle when it was signed into law. Hell, who would want to marry another fella? Or worse, who would want to marry thier mule? Can't be issuing certificates to trappers butt-fucking 'lulu-bell' the pack mule.... And chicks with dicks? Don't get me started...

So anyways, here we are and these definitions of marriage that everybody is so up in arms about have been around for a long, long time - and nobody has had a problem with it until the last 10 or so years really.

Wow. I can't think of a better example of saying a lot without saying anything at all.

[BellaBellucci]

:Bowdown:


Genius at work here......


Getting back to marriage for a sec... A lot of people are taking this position that marriage is a natual right of some kind and that government (local, state, or federal) should have no say whatseover in who get's 'married'. That's all fine and dandy, and if you really believe that then you don't *need* a certificate from the state affirming your marriage, right? . You can just have a ceremony and say your vows and make your promises to your God (whatever that may be) and then move in with your loved one and live out your days. Hell, you can do that NOW in the US and nobody would give a fuck. Perfect, right?

Ah... not so fast. What happens after you've been living with your 'spouse' for five years and you've finally come to the conclusion that this dumb fuck isn't worth a damn? Smokes weed all day, getting fat, lazy.... basically he's a useless piece of shit (which all your friends were telling you in the first place before you married the schmuck). Hey, it's been 5 years and you are ready to move on and find somebody else but YOU'VE got some serious shit invested in this relationship. The title to the house is in your name and you paid for most of the furniture (he bought a decorative bong...). Bottom line is you want to get a fair shake when you stand before the judge and tell him what jackoff your 'spouse' is.......

Well now that little 'certificate' from the state is starting to seem a more important now isn't it? It would be nice to have some officially sanctioned evidence by a governing body that validates the consecration of your vows, if nothing else so you can keep your shit. I'm just scratching the surface here - there are many things made easier by simply having a marriage certificate.

This isn't anything new - they knew this HUNDREDS of years ago which is why marriage certificates issued by a government (or, if you were in a more rural area it was recorded by a Minister of the Gospel and filed with the county probate court or magistrate court).

Obvioulsy, if you are a government body issuing certificates you have to define (in clear legal terms) exactly what it is you are giving out. Seems simple enough, and hence 'marriage' was defined (by the States, the Federal Goverment had bigger fish to fry at this time, like clearing out the west of Injuns). Of course, 150 years ago it seemed PRETTY NATURAL for everybody that marriage would be defined as taking place between a man and a woman. Hell, I'm sure it didn't even raise any eyebrows or garner as much as a giggle when it was signed into law. Hell, who would want to marry another fella? Or worse, who would want to marry thier mule? Can't be issuing certificates to trappers butt-fucking 'lulu-bell' the pack mule.... And chicks with dicks? Don't get me started...

So anyways, here we are and these definitions of marriage that everybody is so up in arms about have been around for a long, long time - and nobody has had a problem with it until the last 10 or so years really.

Waaaaaaaaah! Rigidity of etymology is more important than equal human rights. Waaaaaaaaaah! :fu:

~BB~

[hard4janira]

Im just explaining WHY a marriage certificate is useful and how it came to be for those who say that government has no business defining marriage. I think that ive made the case that a marriage certificate is pretty relevant, particularly if you plan on using the court system with regards to it. The issue seems to be the definition of what a marriage is. I think civil unions are intended to non traditional arrangements just that: a certificate from the state and access to the courts. I dont know why people are against civil unions, hut i haven't peeled the onion on that because i don't give enough of a shit

[hard4janira]

Waaaaaaaaah! Rigidity of etymology is more important than equal human rights. Waaaaaaaaaah! :fu:

~BB~

By the way dummy, you're not arguing for the basic human right to live with who you want. You can already do that in America and nobody gives a rats ass. You're arguing for a piece of paper issued by government by making the case that government has no business defining the very certificate you want so badly

[jamiefey]

Just get the government the hell out of marriage already. Stop whining about special tax breaks for straight couples and other bullshit, this is the attitude of whiny bitches sucking at the government teet.

Also, stop trying to force straight people to accept gay marriage. You want to have a wedding? Go rent a reception hall, invite your friends and family, and do it.

By the way, two dudes or two girls fucking is not the same thing as a man and a woman shacking up. Accept reality and stop deluding yourselves you stupid fucks. The more you force the "=" crap on people with any sense, the more backlash you're going to encounter.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Actually a large percentage of women are making more money then men now a days...

[Jackal]

If a man has the right to marry a woman, then a woman should have the same legal right. If a woman has the right to marry a man, then a man should have the same legal right. You can call equality crap, but it is the way of the future and the right thing to do.

[MdR Dave]

Also, stop trying to force straight people to accept gay marriage. You want to have a wedding? Go rent a reception hall, invite your friends and family, and do it.

By the way, two dudes or two girls fucking is not the same thing as a man and a woman shacking up. Accept reality and stop deluding yourselves you stupid fucks. The more you force the "=" crap on people with any sense, the more backlash you're going to encounter.

You state this $hit publicly? Your kin should be real proud.

Substitute "white" for "straight" and "black" for "gay". Now go to your room and write "I will not be a hateful bigot" on a piece of paper 1000 times.

And the last part? "Fellas wouldn't get lynched if fellas didn't get uppity". You're a genius.

The court finds you guilty of being a white- bread, chicken$hit, redneck motherfu€ker

[BellaBellucci]

By the way dummy, you're not arguing for the basic human right to live with who you want. You can already do that in America and nobody gives a rats ass. You're arguing for a piece of paper issued by government by making the case that government has no business defining the very certificate you want so badly

Maybe you missed it, so I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

In a nutshell (for the real 'dummies' out there) it says that separate is inherently unequal. There are many rights granted automatically to a married couple that don't apply to those in civil unions, such as portability, federal recognition and benefits, the ability to be divorced in any state, and a general understanding by the public, particularly in the health care and probate areas, of what benefits are provided to a partner in a civil union versus a marriage.

But I guess you know better than the Supreme Court of the United States. You'd better let President Obama know that you'll be ready to take Justice Kennedy's seat when he finally kicks or you risk being looked over for someone with, you know, actual legal knowledge and experience. :geek:


Just get the government the hell out of marriage already. Stop whining about special tax breaks for straight couples and other bullshit, this is the attitude of whiny bitches sucking at the government teet.

Also, stop trying to force straight people to accept gay marriage. You want to have a wedding? Go rent a reception hall, invite your friends and family, and do it.

By the way, two dudes or two girls fucking is not the same thing as a man and a woman shacking up. Accept reality and stop deluding yourselves you stupid fucks. The more you force the "=" crap on people with any sense, the more backlash you're going to encounter.

This is your first post ever after years of lurking? Some people should really just stay silent.

~BB~

[Jackal]

Maybe you missed it, so I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

In a nutshell (for the real 'dummies' out there) it says that separate is inherently unequal. There are many rights granted automatically to a married couple that don't apply to those in civil unions, such as portability, federal recognition and benefits, the ability to be divorced in any state, and a general understanding by the public, particularly in the health care and probate areas, of what benefits provided to a partner in a civil union versus a marriage.

But I guess you know better than the Supreme Court of the United States. You'd better let President Obama know that you'll be ready to take Justice Kennedy's seat when he finally kicks or you risk being looked over for someone with, you know, actual legal knowledge and experience. :geek:



This is your first post ever after years of lurking? Some people should really just stay silent.

~BB~
You tell 'em, Bella!

[Thor25]

I lived in Canada which legalized it over 7 years ago without a fuss, and that country isn't being destroyed because of the evil gay marriage being legal.

I moved to Iceland, where it was legalized many years ago and our current prime minister is a Lesbian.

US needs to join the modern world and give rights to all its citizens.

[Erika1487]

Thanks for all the great responses!
Its interesting that all those who claim they don’t want federal civil unions and support “States Rights” also support federal discrimination laws and want federal courts to decide the fate of GLTB community. So which is it? Do you want federal laws or not??:confused:

Stands on :soapbox: I say let there be a federal law on civil unions and let each individual state decide on weather it will support full on GLTB marriage.