Do you favor Gay Marriage or Civil Unions? (from Boston Globe article)

I read this in today's Boston Globe and think gay marriage is the obvious choice. There are clear differences between civil unions and marriage as presented in the Mass laws, amounting to about 1000 more protections under the law for marriages. The following from the article seems to nail the issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/09/gay_couples_are_pressing_for_equal_benefits/

But Karlin and George are pushing for marriage over civil unions for reasons that go beyond the institutions' financial impact, and beyond the extra legal obligations to each other it will impose.

For them, approval of civil unions over marriage in Massachusetts will be no victory, because it would assign them what they see as second-class status.

``A civil union is the stepchild of marriage,'' George said. ``What it's saying is, `Well, we want to give you something, but you're not quite as good as heterosexuals, so here's a civil union.' I think more of myself than that. I've tried to be a good citizen. I've made many contributions to society. ... And I believe I should be extended the same respect as a heterosexual who's done the same thing, or less, or nothing.''

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Period.

I will not capitulate.

is historically a religous union. They are sanctioned by the state because the state sanctions overlapped with the religious sanction. Separate the state sanction, in the form of a civil union, and marriage is then left to the church.

It's simple really. All couples would receive the sanction of the state through a union. Some couples, if their church allows, will have the sanction of marriage. The state ends up equally protecting the civil rights of joined couples, while the churches, rightly by the consitution, are left to decide for themselves what marriages they will ordain.

Is marriage really limited to religious sponsorship? People get married at city hall every day. And as the article represents, there's a difference between marriage and civil unions...

The state shouldn't be in the marriage business. Yes, marriage SHOULD be limited to religious sponsorship. City hall should be able to do nothing more than sanction a civil union. And yes, the difference between marriage and civil unions will continue to exist. But the state-recognized union will grant the same rights to all who enter into it. The constitutional rights of joined couples will then be equally protected.

The constitution does not guarantee, however, equal access to religious services. Chruches synagogues, and mosques would be left to decide for themselves unto whom they will bestow holy matrimony.

The civil nuptials will be granted by the state. The religious or spiritual wedding will be left to the religions.

Yeah I know, if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. If I were a candidate, I'd take the minimal position from the onset; start with giving people their legal rights. Most Americans can deal with that. I wouldn't say the words "civil union" or "gay marriage."

by law. I, for one, get sick of the bandying about of terms. Rights are rights, every American deserves the same treatment.

kick!

These are supposed to be "separate but equal" institutions, no? Civil unions aren't marriages, but they are intended to be equal--that's the definition, I believe.

Let me just say the law should not have cause to separate people on their partnerships. Let the churches do whatever they want, but under the law let's have equality, eh?

Rove is gonna try to make gay marriage a big issue in 2004.

Don't let him.

Are we not the party of social justice and economic justice?

from the article:
And even though the terms ``civil unions'' and ``marriage'' are sometimes used interchangeably, only marriage would put the couple on an equal legal footing with their neighbors, both opponents and supporters agree, providing more than 1,400 rights and protections for which they do not currently qualify.

That's a lot of rights and protections we'd be ignoring as a party. My point: we need to be a principles-based party and apply those principles equally and fairly across all issues. That will win us elections. Selectiv application of principles make the principles meaningless.

that Rove can't attack. Vermont already has them.

We can-and should- get gay marriage later.

If a church wants to solemnize a gay relationship, that's their business, and there should be no laws interfering, either pro or con. And I also believe that there should be a civil alternative to marriage with the same privileges and responsibilities.

The Constitution guarantees "equal protection of the law" to "ALL persons born or naturalized." It places no limits on those guarantees!

Last time I checked, marriage laws fall under the category of "the law," and homosexual persons fall under "all persons born or naturalized."

It doesn't say "equal protection of the law - except for marriage law."
It doesn't say "equal protection of the law - except for when it makes most people feel icky."
It doesn't say "all persons born or naturalized - except for the gay people."

If you want the Constitution to mean any of those things, AMEND IT TO SAY SO! Otherwise, don't depend on a judge to legislate such limits on constitutional guarantees from the bench.

And I know people will say, "but but but.. what about my religious rights?"

When equal marriage policy is implemented (yes, I said "when"), you'll still retain all of your constitutional rights!

- you'll still be free to believe what you want (i.e, your freedom of belief=preserved)
- you'll still be free to NOT enter into a gay marriage (i.e, your freedom of practice=preserved)
- and you'll still be free to speak-out against that which you find immoral (i.e, your freedom of speech=preserved).

Taa-daa! Issue solved! :)

kick!