PurplePets22
Posted : 11/11/2008 9:23:08 AM
jenn52
One question I have is, why can't gays have a civil union and straight people have marriage? Why do they have to be the same word? Being gay is different from being straight. Gays cannot biologically reproduce with each other. Gays cannot consummate a marriage (Bill Clinton gave us the definition of sex). Why can't we just establish that they are two distinct types of relationships and let it be?
On the one hand.....I don't care if we use a different word, as long as the definition of "civil union" is changed. Actually, in the eyes of the law all marriages are civil unions. "Civil" meaning "established by law" and "union" meaning "the act of joining two or more things into one". Every single one of you who is "married" is party to a legal contract between you and your partner. That contract is governed by the state and recognized by all other states in this country and all other countries in the world. "Marriage" brings a lot of religious, spiritual and personal connotation to the table. A couple people here have stated that the piece of paper given to them doesn't mean a hoot. The commitment professed privately between them is what "marries" them. My partner and I have been married for 10 years by that definition. That doesn't do a @#$% bit of good in the eyes of the law.
This list is from the Human Rights Campaign website.
Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in
long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied
basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them:
- Hospital visitation. Married couples have the
automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical
decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or
injured loved one in the hospital.
- Social Security benefits. Married people receive
Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying
payroll taxes, gay and *** workers receive no Social Security
survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of
$5,528 upon the death of a partner.
- Health insurance. Many public and private employers
provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most
employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and
*** employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for
their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the
insurance.
- Estate taxes. A married person automatically
inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying
estate taxes. A gay or *** taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes
on property inherited from a deceased partner.
- Retirement savings. While a married person can roll
a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a
gay or *** American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to
70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
- Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled
to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and
*** workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their
partners.
- Immigration rights. Bi-national families are
commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The
reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to
petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
- Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to
live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses,
elderly gay or *** couples do not have the right to spend their
last days living together in nursing homes.
- Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from
being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay
and *** seniors have no such protection.
- Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension
plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant.
Gay and *** partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
Why aren’t civil unions enough?
Comparing
marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to
rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not.
Consider:
Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage
performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in
the nation and every country in the world.
Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont
(or other state recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships) have
no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to
neighboring New York – let alone Texas or any other state.
Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and
remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison
to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level
protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal
benefits and protections of marriage.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal –
they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate
before. It just doesn’t work.
Marriage
- State grants marriage licenses to couples.
- Couples receive legal protections and rights under state and federal law.
- Couples are recognized as being married by the federal government and all state governments.
- Religious institutions are not required to recognize marriages or perform marriage ceremonies.
Civil Unions
- State would grant civil union licenses to couples
- Couples receive legal protections and rights under state law only.
- Civil unions are not recognized by other states or federal government.
- Religious institutions are not required to recognize civil unions or perform civil union ceremonies
I am not here to bash anyones personal beliefs. I do want to be treated equally. Not special, not extra.........just the same. You don't have to like it. You don't have to participate. Churches won't be forced into anything. Schools won't be forced into anything.
The constitution was amended in 1870 to prevent rights being denied on the basis of race. It was ameneded again in 1920 to prevent denial of voting on the basis of gender. No where does it stipulate that marriage is allowable between men and women only. Don't you think it's time we amend it again to prevent denial of partnership rights on the basis of sexual orientation?