Should gay couples be content with civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage?

The reason I am asking is because I see a lot of people who seem to think that as long as gay couples are allotted the 1000 or more benefits now denied to them that they would receive by being legally married, they shouldnt complain anymore . I find this appalling logic.
I would ask that heterosexual couples put themselves in the shoes of gay couples, as I have tried to do, and ask yourself..what if, tomorrow, your marriage was deemed invalid, and you were told you could only have a civil union?

IMO, anyone who doesnt support gay marriage as a civil RIGHT in this country is in favour of demoting a whole group of people to second class citizenship.

p.s. current civil unions do not provide 1049 benefits that marriage does.

Civil unions for everyone, then let churches decide who can and cannot be married in their church (the way Catholics already do with divorcees, for instance).

but a substantial segment of the population balks at calling same-sex marriages "marriages". I'm looking to sidestep that squeamishness.

meaning.

Therefore, I would propose using the term another DU'er suggested- Civil Marriage.

I agree, but until then - if marriage is what's recognized, marriage for all couples.

due to the fact so many phobies don't and won't ever willingly share their 'marriage word' with anyone other than the straights. call it something else and lets all be happy for everyone involved. Thats what I think anyway.

than getting Equal Rights.

Think much?

Leave marriage to the churches.

OLD text Civil Union rights (should) = Marriage rights

New text Civil Unions should confer rights. Marriages should confer religious comfort, not rights.

Why should the government be in the business of giving government recognition to religious ceremonies? They shouldn't. Neither should churches sanctify government actions. The two spheres should be completely separate.

The following is not really a cogent argument for civil unions; it's just my story and why I think they should be required. It's a story of weakness, but a weakness many atheists share - the reluctance to make an issue of religion within their families.

I wish that at the time I was married that we had been required to go before a state authority to legalize our union. Because states give the authorization to preachers, I was coerced by family on both sides to have a religious ceremony.

If we had been required to be joined legally in a civil ceremony, I would never have had to suffer through my own wedding. I would have been able to avoid the religion comfortably. I had the choice of doing what I wanted or creating massive problems that would linger for years. I wimped out. Thirty-one years later I'm still married, and still celebrating that relationship, but I am also still bitter about my wedding. All because of the commingling of church and state.

Except for the legal issues, I would have been just as happy sans any ceremony at all.

Marriage for all, or Civil Unions for all. Take your pick, for I'll support either.

We'd like to see everyone start clearly distinguishing "civil marriage"
(or "civil unions", we don't care) from "religious marriage".

The first one is in the domain of the states and civil laws, the second
one is in the domain of the churches.

And they should have very little or nothing to do with each other.

Tesha

It's the same water. What's the problem?

I am shocked that anyone voted yes. sitting here in disbelief.

I've noticed that people who forward that argument tend to willfully overlook certain aspects of the plan: like, why is it necessary to change ANY terminology?

They still called it marriage when Jews married gentiles. They still called it marriage when whites married blacks. No one had a problem with the terminology then. No one was going around screaming "CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!" back then, even though lots of people obviously had a problem with it.

Nobody felt any reason to compromise on racism and anti-semitism. When it comes to teh gays, however, suddenly we're all about COMPROMISE.

The entire argument in favor of civil unions is an enormous insult to gay people, and anyone who advances it is insulting the gay community at large.

its like theres this element of homophobia just lurking under the surface of that....COMPROMISE

it totally freaks me out.

edit to add:

Obama , imo, is insulting gay folks when he proposes that kind of compromise.

and when people ask for compromise, imo, its HOMOPHOBIA.

I just call it as I see it.

The government should never have had anything to do with marriage in the first place, that's why it's necessary.

If it took a hate campaign to make people think about the issue, that is very unfortunate. However I still say civil unions for all. Since this will never happen in America, I voted NO, gay couples should NOT be content with civil unions because normal couples never will be either.

:scared:

darn good way to look at this!

Gays and singles included. We all pay more taxes per dollar earned than married couples.

Personally, I'm in favor of state-recogized civil unions for all (with private religious marriages for those who want them), but while marriage is the norm, no. Equal rights means just that.

Heterosexuals can get a civil union with a justice of the peace (often called a marriage) or a religious ceremony (always called a marriage). Gay people should be accorded the same rights, period.

I agree - it is second class citizen status

sometimes I hear even the most illustrious sounding Dems sound a little bit nervous about this issue...its like theres this element of homophobia still lurking down there somewhere and they skirt around the issue issuing proclamations and formidable ideas about how we need to change all the rules of marriage et al, when , in actuality, they dont seem to realize that the institution of marriage in this country isnt going to accomodate their ideals...i.e., it wont change into 'civil unions for everyone' and 'no marriage', etc..


There has to be a LAW that states that gay folks are legally allowed to walk into a license bureau, get a marriage lisence, and be legally recognized by every state as legally married.

Period.

if I didnt make myself clear, let me know.

OR, even worse, CATERING to homophobic voters - it will eventually go the way of opposition to "mixed marriages" but it takes a fucking long time doesn't it? :mad:

there was this much backpedalling by dems? and skirting around the issues? and did people ask them to be happy with just the words civil union back then?

couples had to get civil unions as well, and throw out the whole state sponsored marriage thing. Until then, gay couples deserve the same rights, ie marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Whom you marry, where you choose to drink/smoke/etc.

Adults should have rights to associate/marry whom they will. But all too often other adults want to get in the way and tell folks what is best for them.

You want freedom? I do as well - from people being able to marry whom they wish to people being able to choose where they go as adults and what they do there.

*I* stand for the rights and freedoms of all, but those same folks wanting me to support their rights seem, all too often, to oppose freedom for other adults.

Those who say they are against control I keep finding to be the same ones who are all for it. And I don't get that.

with civil unions. They should have the same rights as hetero couples do. I'm hetero and feel very strongly about this.

NO WAY IN HELL!

The premise of the poll is a non-starter.

I can marry a trailer to a truck with a tow hitch.

I can marry two pieces of bread together with some peanut butter and jelly.

"Marriage" can mean many different things and those meanings have changed over time.

The US should remove *all* rights/benefits from marriage and leave that word for the church without any special rights attached.

They should instead put all those rights/benefits into civil unions and as such properly separate the rights/benefits from the church

In that way all people who want federal benefits would have to get a civil union, if people also want a marriage then they can seek out a church that is willing to marry them.

The main benefit being that people no longer need the church to get all the rights and benefits they deserve

Sidenote: my explanation above is likely a bit rough around the edges, but people should understand the gist of my view i think

People get married by judges and ship captains all the time. There is no law in the country that makes a church wedding more valid than a civil one. Marriage in the United States is a civil term.

There is no reason to change the terminology except to appease bigots. I have no interest in appeasing bigots.

and leave marriage to the churches.

:hug:

And anyone who does so should be considered "married" with all legal rights conferred by that status.

If a particular religious denomination does not wish to perform same sex marriages, that is their right. But the law should make no distinction between "civil" and "religious" marriage ceremonies. In other words current laws pertaining to marriage should be expanded to apply to ALL marriages (same sex as well as "opposite" marriages).

Now don't scream. It's a yes in the same sense that I would vote that anything that is near certainly unlikely is possible to imagine would be acceptable.

I honestly don't care for heteromarriage emulation. There is a very old school of gay rights which opposes emulation of heterosexuals. I'm not aligned with that old school, but the point was that I didn't invent it. It has something to do with imitating your oppressors and bong hits or something as dated. What I object to are men making gooey references to their male spouses and women making almost sexist references to their female spouses.

Years ago, when a Lesbian was complaining about men who complained about Lesbians defining themselves out from "gay", especially when it came to naming and signs, a woman who was quite upset gave a long list of her grievances against gay men and men in general, ending with her sarcastic demand for something as little as "our own word". It halfway made sense, but I still disagree with the divisiveness, ink, and the inevitable alphabet soup which it spawned.

Well, I want our own word. I want a word for a same sex spouse which carries the same degree of importance as husband or wife, but without the quotation marks, the gooey adolescence, the sometimes bitchy backhandedness or cynicism of using the heterosexual words. Besides, these words are used in pairs, and if he's your husband, it's natural for someone to think of you as wife.

In this fantasy scenario, I could easily be OK with letting the heterosexuals keep their word.

no text necessary.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree. I worry that the more gay people become "assimilated" into "straight" America, the more we'll lose touch with the things that made us a community...the things that made us special, and unique...and FUN. I have absolutely no desire to get married myself, and I don't want a world where there are no gay pride parades with leather daddies and drag queens. I love gay culture exactly how it is, in all it's outrageous, fabulous excess and flair.

However:

There are gay people who DO want to get married. There are gay people who are very EAGER to assimilate into straight America, not necessarily because they don't want to be freaks, but because that's just how they want to live their lives. And they should abso-fucking-lutely have that right. Anything less than full equality means there is something wrong - or "less" about being gay. None of us agree with that. That means we have to fight alongside those of our brothers and sisters who want marriage, whatever that might mean for them. And the bottom line is, it's inevitable. We're out of the closet, and there's no going back. We WILL have marriage equality within the next 20 years. We WILL, largely, assimilate. It's inevitable.

We should be able to keep our identities and still get married. Indeed, we MUST be able to, or some truly wonderful fabulousness will disappear from the world.

My gay niece is getting married this July, they are not having a civil union, they are having a wedding and that's where people get married, just like all people in love should be able to do.

What's the difference between a civil union, and marriage? In Canada, (where I'm from) a marriage using a JP or a church wedding is the same. Is that not the same in the US? And if people, (gay included) want a religious or just a justice of the peace wedding, then they should have that right, of course. The problem is finding a religion that will marry gay people. That would be difficult as we know, but if it was legal, would churches be forced to do the cerimonies?

no, a church wouldnt have to marry them, or they could if they wanted. but the marriage lisence would be first issued by the state, as it is with heterosexual couples, and then they would recieve all the benefits of marriage that they now do not get in civil unions, plus, they would be equally recognized as state sanctioned marriage.

And churches can not be forced to do or not do anything, so I could find today many lovely churches where we could have a wedding if we wanted, but there would be no legal aspect, as the State holds all the legal power, and it is the State that discriminates.d

Is the like done with a justice of the Peace? And can people still have a civil union in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage? That would mean then that they don't have same sex rights then....Also, how many states right now allow gay marriage? And if you got married in a state where it was legal and then moved to a state where it is not, then what? Sounds just plain absurd to me that gays can't marry...I mean, I could see religions being against it because they're still in the dark, and homophobic and twisted, but holy shit, this is just plain dark ages mentality...I just shake my head.....:shrug:

"marriage" should be church business, and that legal rights should only be conferred by civil union and never by any mere religious ceremony.

If a church doesn't want to marry gays, OR DOESN'T WANT TO MARRY STRAIGHTS, it should have that right.

Total separation of church and state on this issue. JMHO

ETA to add that OF COURSE civil unions may be between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

:shrug:

:)

:hi:
No sorry necessary :D

as in they should not bitch about a Civil Unions bill not being good enough or pure enough or whatever.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are entitled to fully equal treatment under law, including civil marriage laws.

Except that more of our population is humanized more completely. What is the big effin deal here, folks? Just do it! Marriage for everyone who wants it!

... to join together and share in those 1,000+ legal benefits. Officiating at said joining would be a Justice of the Peace or other civil officer. Call it a civil union, call it what you will, but do not Not NOT call it a marriage, whether it be between a man and woman or couples of the same gender. Is that clear? Everyone gets to do this and everyone gets the same rights and obligations regarding property, children, and each other. You do not go to the clergy for a wedding license -- you go to the County Courthouse.

If a man and woman, or two men, or two women want to have a "wedding" or a "marriage" let it be in a religious setting with a willing member of the clergy. If the Southern Baptist church you were raised in is not willing, it's sad but it is their right to define who gets to partake of their sacraments -- it is the very definition of the separation of Church and State. Does the Baptist minister who won't let you have a "wedding" in his church get to deny you the right to have a civil union? No, he does not. THAT is up to the STATE.

OTHER COUNTRIES DO THIS. THE USA NEEDS TO START DOING THIS TOO. End of problem, as far as I am concerned.

The sooner we stop fighting over the difference between "marriages" and "civil unions" and "weddings" the sooner we can get down to the business of ensuring that adult consenting couples can be civilly joined to one another with all the rights, privileges, and obligations pertaining thereto.

Because I tell you, there are some young people I watched grow up whose "weddings" I would like to attend at the Unitarian Church, joyously assured that their paperwork is all on file in the County Courthouse.

Hekate

Please explain.

lots of them . what do you think explains this phenomenon? I am somewhat shocked, to be honest with you.

They'd never admit it, even to themselves, but they don't consider us equal. I'm not sure they even consider us people.

so all this roundabout talk about 'lets change the word marriage', and ' be content with civil unions' and 'lets call it civil unions for everyone' is really just a lot of squirming and homophobia and fear of gay folks actually being legally married.


Im so sorry that this exists on here. I can only send you all the love in the world, from an old grandma here who doesnt think that way.

much love.

I honestly believe that there are more people like you, deep down, in this country than otherwise. Some people are beyond hope, but some people just need to be educated.

We'll get there. But, in the meantime, it's very nice to know there are people out there who support us.

:hug:

for EVERYONE. Give the religious folk the term "marriage". If you want the government to recognize the legal joining of two people, call it civil union, because thats what it is. Get government out of the marriage business.

You're joking right?


Since when did the church gain the usage rights for "marriage"?


That is fucking news to me.

Seems to me that THAT is what the anti-gay marriage folks are on about, so I say give it to them. A "marriage" would mean nothing, just a term given to the ceremony conducted in a church. Now, if those same folks wanted the government to recognize that they have legally joined with another person, they would have to get a "civil union license". Create a new term for all government recognized unions, then they have NOTHING to complain about.

They do not own nor do they deserve to possess the term. Fuck them.

Marriage has always meant and will continue to mean more than "nothing". We have no reason to throw it out.

People are hung up on a word but if they're both the same legally just call them all civil unions and shut everyone up. A marriage ceremony can be religious but has no legal bearing.

It carries a certain weight in society.

Public perception of marriage is going to be different from "civil unions". People like the concept of marriage. Why do you think that the religious nuts have been fighting so hard to keep the gay community from using it?

No, instead you guys would rather compromise with these shitheads and throw out a perfectly legitimate term.


Do you not understand the stupidity in that stance?

Really, legally speaking that's what they are. Marriage is a religious concept in my opinion

If I decide to bind myself legally to another person they can call it whatever they want.

appreciate it if you didn't try to attack the legitimacy of the word for the rest of us.


I don't care that you don't care. But don't argue that it's just a word when you clearly do not represent the majority opinion on the term.

It's not just a word.

Eventually, if Obama is successful, Civil Unions will be Federalized and states would be forced to recognize them. But if you want to get hung up on the LEGAL term of it, then go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot. EVERYONE will call it 'GAY MARRIAGE'. But you won't have anything to do with it because it won't be legally called that.

call them all civil unions. what so magical about the word "marriage"? We're talking legal here, not romance.

If gay people got ALL the benefits, all that would be left is a religious ceremony, and even though I don't like any of them religions are generally free to define themselves.

Ironically, there are some churches that are ahead of the federal government of the equality issue.

Marriage for straight people and civil unions for gay people is still separate but equal, no matter how you look at it.

It's WRONG.

involvement ends, the rest is religious ceremony and you just said that is already done.

Since everyone in the country is supposed to be equal, not being equal is BAD.

I can't make it any more clear than that.

Were you one of those people cool with the different water fountains? "Hey, it's all the same water, isn't it? What's the problem?"

I just cannot believe what I am hearing.

It's a broken record around here.

I was freaking out on the thread about Obama and his dictate today, with everyone congratulating him on recognizing gay families. as if thats enough.
But, than, when I saw some of the responses on here, I honestly and starting to see that a lot of people are undeniably against the rights of gay folks being able to legally be called 'married'. I had no idea it was this bad, and this is a democratic forum. I am aghast, I am saddened, and I am disgusted.

I live in Britain. Here, we have Domestic Partnerships which carry the exact same legal rights as marriage. The law was written in such a way that if there was ever any dispute, they are to be judged exactly equal to marriage in all respects but the very, very technical (like what exactly constitutes "consumation"). For us, it works. I offer that not as an example but so you have some idea where I'm coming from.

I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. That is, leave the word "marriage" to the churches and offer Civil Unions (with all the rights and responsibilities currently attached to marriage) to any two mentally competent adults who wish to register. Exactly equal. If you and your partner want the legal rights, you register as a legal unit and gain a Civil Union, regardless of the sex of the two parties involved. If you want to go further and have religious rites, that's fine. It's optional.

And let the religious types do weddings as they chose. Its pretty much what they do in France.

That doesn't make any damn sense.

All unions should be civil to be recognized. The religious could do what they want, but it has no legal standing. It totally separates the civil/legal side from religious ceremonies and the control it has on the concept and process.

I understand that some are really bought into the word marriage. I am not. It could be called unions, marriages, joinings, bindings, whatever. I don't really care, but if its important to some, that's fine by me. However, it would be the same for everyone. The key is the separation from religion and the control thereof.

I would prefer that at the state (small-s intentional) level, all conjugal relationships should be treated as civil unions...What people want to call them beyond that is between themselves and their social and cultural groups...since that will never happen, I'd say civil unions aren't good enough.

and we get 1049 benefits. There's no controversy there.

In fact, I wish religion would get the hell out of my government. I think gay couples should be able to go to the county clerk as we did and have a civil "marriage." That will do more than any religious ceremony could for their rights as citizens. I'm sure that "civil married" gay couples would have no problem finding a friendly minister to bless their union. Those ceremonies have no binding legal reality anyway. They don't exist as legal unions without the license, purchased from the state.

A case can be made that "gay marriage" is actually setting back gay rights, as so many more people oppose the churchy "marriage" part, which as I said is not even legal. LOTS of Americans think they should have the legal rights though. Please, my beloved gay brothers and sisters, take the religious element out of it. You are shooting yourselves in the foot!

(JMSO--don't hurt me)

Why be content with that - it should just be equal.

Politically it could be a hard sell for now - the older generation especially is very prejudiced.

Lets say that the law of the land says that black people can ONLY get civil unions. Good, godfearing black folks who go to church every sunday want to be recognized by the state as legally married.
The POTUS and govt comes along and says
"Im all for black folks having civil unions with equal benefits, but they cannot call it marriage"

would anyone be up in arms over that?

the state would have no reason to deny anyone marriage or civil union or partnership or binding or whatever you want to call it. There is simply no reason, outside of religious belief, to deny gays the right to marry. Civil unions (marriages, whatever) should be required as long as there are legal benefits pertaining.

You want the word marriage, fine. Got no problem with that. The word just doesn't mean that much to me, although I agree that the word has cultural and social implications that go beyond the legal implications.

I also agree that giving fundies the word is a compromise you shouldn't have to make. Forcing them to have a civil ceremony to make their unions legal would be a huge compromise for them, and one I believe they should be forced to make.

I think that gay individuals and gay couples are entitled to full citizenship and that includes marriage and everything that goes with it.

It doesn't threaten or hurt my heterosexual marriage to have gay couples share the same legal status. I think it would help society as a whole, as every other step toward equality of diverse groups has. It adds to a community to have all different points of view, life styles, racial and cultural diversity, or gender preference with equal protection under the law for everyone. Anything else is bogus and is not a substitute for owning all of the rights of citizenship, not just those someone else picks and says that the people they are discriminating against should be happy with.

I admit, if I thought it had a pope's prayer of working, and the rights would be truely equal, then I would answer yes. But there is no evidence whatsoever that this would work. No difference in voting patterns when referenda targetted marriage only vs ones which targetted any relationship. The one and only exception to this was Arizona where elderly people wanted rights for themselves that civil unions were giving. It is simply bad strategy plus bad public policy.

CUs may provide a useful tactical bridge to full equality. But they're a means, not ever a satisfactory end.

..I don't presume to dictate to anyone what they should or should not be happy with.

The reasoning behind my YES vote is that I would be satisfied if EVERYONE held the same rights and benefits in the eyes of the government....Equal Rights and Equal Protections for ALL...NO exceptions.
The Civil Union you describe in the OP satisfies this requirement.


I won't waste time debating the definition of the word "Marriage", nor do I believe that the state has any business doing so either. If somebody's church or religion wants to forbid "Gay Marriage" in THEIR church...more power to them. They will NEVER have me for a member.

I rarely presume to tell people what they should be satisfied with.

Some will be satisfied with it, and others won't. It's up to them.

I have developed an animosity against religious fevor to the point that, I am willing to give them their moral dictates, as long as they DO NOT STEP on all of our HUMAN RIGHTS: to love free from their biggotry and engage in legal contracts outside their hypercritical stands!!! Whatever "moral dictates" they hold they must enforce among themselves. Meanwhile, ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, free from any religious oppression, must be preserved!!!! Every adult human being has the freedom to love and to contract according to all those laws that preserve BOTH liberty and safety.

and a better justification for my stand on the issue. I am not asking anyone to change their definition of anything. Why should I be asked to change my definitions?

Why should gay people cede the word marriage to bigots?

taken a foothold here at DU...kinda pathetic that we've devolved into this.

Oh, BTW...Iowa resident here...the rivers are not flowing with the blood of innocents, fire & brimstone is not coming down from the sky, no 40 years of darkness, no earthquakes, no volcanoes, no dead rising from the grave, no human sacrifice, no dogs & cats living together, etc.

What other lies have you told?

We should have "civil union" (or whatever you want to call them) contracts which are recognized and enforced by the government as long as certain criteria for age, etc. are met. They should convey all the rights and benefits currently provided by "marriage". They should not be limited on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. If a couple wished to get "married" they would still be free to do so in a church or a tee-pee or a Dairy Queen. If a particular church doesn't want gay people to get "married" in their narrow halls, that is their prerogative. This ceremony is simply that, a ceremony; the rights and obligations come when you sign on the dotted line down at the courthouse. It would be similar to the Catholic Church and divorce. The church doesn't "sanction" divorce. The government does. The church's position doesn't mean you can't get a divorce, only that if you choose to play by their rules, then no more crackers for you.

Why was marriage okay for everybody until teh gays wanted in? Now suddenly, everyone's of the opinion that NOBODY should be married, and that everyone should be civil-unioned.

I'm sure that 90% of the people who are all pro-civil unions for everyone would claim that they've "always felt that way". Funny how they never said so until teh gays started speaking up...

I wonder if , when mixed marriages were challenged in the USA, did everyone start saying we should stop using the word 'marriage' and start turning them all into 'civil unions?'

I doubt it. this is just a new meme to set up a roadblock to gay folks being called 'married'. why cant people just come right out and say what they are really thinking? "I dont think people who are gay should be able to use the word marriage because only straight people should own that word..."/ at least they would be more honest.

Everybody can still be "married". Marriage is still okay for everybody. The government just won't be in that business. Your point about "the church" getting to control marriage, I think is mistaken. Each "church" or other group that wants to set up its own rules for marriage ceremonies would be free to do so. For every church that doesn't conduct same sex ceremonies there will likely be at least one that does. Everybody would be free to get married, if that ceremony is important to you. I myself got "married" in a civil service in Las Vegas. The ceremony was meaningless (although pretty fun and most assuredly not religious). It was the contract that ultimately mattered. Everyone needs access to that contract. The semantics of what to call it seems like a pretty stupid thing to argue about. In fact, you would still be free to call it a marriage ceremony if you wanted. What the heck? Knock yourself out.
I really don't see this as an anti-gay position. It doesn't concede anything to religion. If anything it marginalizes it even further.
The less religious mumbo jumbo we have wedging its way into civil law the better. I'm also against laws that prevent beer says on Sunday. I take this position regardless of the sexual orientation of those drinking beer with me on the weekend. Your indignation is understandable but I think you are just looking at it the wrong way. At the end of the day, most people will be more concerned with death benefits and insurance and protection in a divorce than "winning" some battle with some ridiculous church.

They deserve the right to marry just like hetrosexuals. Period.

I would be totally okay with civil unions for myself. Marriage, to me, is nothing more than a religious ceremony, and I couild do without religious ceremonies. Overall, equality is the thing to aim for. Whatever you want to call it, everyone should have the same benefits.

Assuming that your goal is "achieve full equal marriage rights as soon as possible", I think that trying to achieve something which is marriage in all but name and then having it renamed is a strategy that may achieve your goal faster than opposing half-measures.

I'm far from confident of that, but it seems plausible at least.

Until each and every minority enjoys the same rights as the white, heterosexual majority, this country will continue to be enslaved by its own bigotry and ignorance.

and to every right and honor. Believe it or not, the term "married" buys a lot of intangibles beyond real-world benefits like 1049 benefits, etc.

but the GLBT folks here schooled me on why that can't work.
It's "separate but equal" all over again, and we know how well THAT worked...

a public affirmation of love for each other in the sight of God (whatever one prefers to believe in) and family. Everyone who loves is entitled to that.

for gay people?

I suppose one could make the case that in the interim second class rights are better than no rights at all. Of course either outcome is still disgraceful.

I realize I'm coming to this thread really late but don't people realize that the fundie dick-heads are fighting ANY form of union for gay people wherever they can? They are LYING when they say it's just about the word. They fight domestic partnership bills, they fight civil union bills. Read some fucking gay blogs people. Damn.

Worked like shit.


No.

As long as I was afforded the same benefits as those who used the term "marriage".