First Ever Republican Senator Rob Reverses Stance, Comes Out in Favor of Gay Marriage

[ace99]

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage, not the same thing.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American opposite-sex spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege. Even legally married gay and lesbian couples cannot sponsor their spouses for immigration because of the Defense of Marriage (DOMA) law.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. Again, because of DOMA, same-sex couples have to file single on their federal tax returns.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

Defense of Marriage Law

Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?

Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

[Antilogic]

This thread is open again.

Yes, I looked again and you are quite right.
I thought civil unions meant married by a clerk or judge, but that's not right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Invented in 2000 in the USA for same sex couples hmm.


I can see why people are advocating for gay marriage now.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

I was about to post on this, but I'm glad it got cleared up. Even we atheists can have a "traditional" marriage in the eyes of the state (well, depending on the state and the hoops you have to jump through...), despite churches having every right not to perform a ceremony or recognize atheists as being married. Likewise, advocates for gay marriage are not asking for churches to be forced to perform ceremonies, just the same legal status.

The church coercion thing gets a lot of press, though, because it riles people up against the idea and it fits in with the general "big government is interfering with your rights" kind of talk.

 

[Zack]

Yes, churches deserve the right to not marry gross homos.

 

[Leifmk]

I was about to post on this, but I'm glad it got cleared up. Even we atheists can have a "traditional" marriage in the eyes of the state (well, depending on the state and the hoops you have to jump through...), despite churches having every right not to perform a ceremony or recognize atheists as being married.

And this has been the state of affairs in most Western countries since at least the middle of the 19th century (in some places, even since before the beginning of recorded history). Religious groups trying to claim exclusive rights to the term "marriage" now are... doing it kind of too late.

 

[ace99]

We should pull a France and abolish marriage replacing it with only civil unions.

Then when conservatives cry about gays destroying traditional marriage it will finally be true.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

We should pull a France and abolish marriage replacing it with only civil unions.

Then when conservatives cry about gays destroying traditional marriage it will finally be true.

At least get rid of the legal benefits of being married.

I mean, think about it. Those legal benefits are intended to encourage people starting a family, and with 7 billion people about, the LAST thing we need are more of us bastards!

 

[ace99]

Sounds like it would be better in that case to abolish heterosexual marriage and encourage purely homosexual relationships.

 

[Leifmk]

We should pull a France and abolish marriage replacing it with only civil unions.

France has not abolished marriage.

 

[Farm Boy]

At least get rid of the legal benefits of being married.

I mean, think about it. Those legal benefits are intended to encourage people starting a family, and with 7 billion people about, the LAST thing we need are more of us bastards!

Oh you can argue that on the grand scale, but I rather gather that you will want things like social programs and roads to be working and at least somewhat funded when you cross into your 40s. Guess what you need for social programs to work! Young people paying in and doing their time. If birth rates fall off by the time you hit 40 the only people paying for your parent's generation will be you. And you will be hosed. Fresh blood is always required to grease the wheels of capitalism and socialism.

 

[dutchfire]

Well, then give money to people who have kids, regardless of their marital status?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, then give money to people who have kids, regardless of their marital status?

We do that already. If you want to be hardnosed about it, and a lot of liberal-leaning thought is inclined to use economic penalties to discourage activities deemed harmful to society, then there's a pretty compelling argument to be made regarding the benefits to society of children raised in stable two-parent households. Perhaps rather than penalizing the those without children and those raising children alone we are merely incentivizing something that pays off over time and on large scale.

 

[caketastydelish]

Maybe it's just me, but the 'bible belt' is so backwards in this way. My church has a female pastor and many these people will not even approve of that, much less gay marriage.

Really, the only way you could be against gay marriage is if you're homophobic. I'd love to see an argument otherwise, because I couldn't even fathom it.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

We do that already. If you want to be hardnosed about it, and a lot of liberal-leaning thought is inclined to use economic penalties to discourage activities deemed harmful to society, then there's a pretty compelling argument to be made regarding the benefits to society of children raised in stable two-parent households. Perhaps rather than penalizing the those without children and those raising children alone we are merely incentivizing something that pays off over time and on large scale.

Wondering, Farm Boy, you're one of the more rational, moderate, and intelligent of the right-leaning members on this forum. What's your opinion on this whole gay marriage thing?

 

[History_Buff]

We do that already. If you want to be hardnosed about it, and a lot of liberal-leaning thought is inclined to use economic penalties to discourage activities deemed harmful to society, then there's a pretty compelling argument to be made regarding the benefits to society of children raised in stable two-parent households. Perhaps rather than penalizing the those without children and those raising children alone we are merely incentivizing something that pays off over time and on large scale.

Before I go nuts, are you really saying that a situation where single-parents don't receive child benefits (where married parents would) is a good thing?

 

[warpus]

Maybe it's just me, but the 'bible belt' is so backwards in this way. My church has a female pastor and many these people will not even approve of that, much less gay marriage.

Really, the only way you could be against gay marriage is if you're homophobic. I'd love to see an argument otherwise, because I couldn't even fathom it.

One hilarious example of a reason to be against gay marriage in the U.S., by a poster I will not name, was that if gay marriage was legalized, that there would be a huge influx of gayness to America, which would overload the healthcare system due to all the AIDS, and in the end IIRC destroy the country in some way or another.

I am not even making this up. So.. yeah.. There are other "reasons" that people have... but then again the above could be filed under homophobia, I guess

 

[caketastydelish]

I know. And here is something shocking someone in real life told me in response to hearing in the news that scientists expect a cure for AIDS within 10 years:

"There already is a cure for AIDS. It's called lifestyle choice."

Oh yes, these gays 'deserve' to catch aids.

 

[Old Hippy]

I know. And here is something shocking someone in real life told me in response to hearing in the news that scientists expect a cure for AIDS within 10 years:

"There already is a cure for AIDS. It's called lifestyle choice."

Oh yes, these gays 'deserve' to catch aids.

well it's more a womens issue, in africa...

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I know. And here is something shocking someone in real life told me in response to hearing in the news that scientists expect a cure for AIDS within 10 years:

"There already is a cure for AIDS. It's called lifestyle choice."

Oh yes, these gays 'deserve' to catch aids.

The only surefire, 100% certain way to avoid catching AIDS is to never, ever have sex with anyone or use any needles whatsoever. Have fun with that.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, think about it. Those legal benefits are intended to encourage people starting a family, and with 7 billion people about, the LAST thing we need are more of us bastards!

I'd much rather families than baby-mommas and baby-daddies; and I think that's where the trade-off is.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wondering, Farm Boy, you're one of the more rational, moderate, and intelligent of the right-leaning members on this forum.

Before I go nuts, are you really saying that a situation where single-parents don't receive child benefits (where married parents would) is a good thing?

Well, as constantly amazing as it is to me to be classified as right-leaning anywhere(on a scale I reject by the way), the post you are responding to Buffness of History was actually trying to be a little snide at people's willingness to accept governmental taxation as a weapon against social behaviors. That feels very much like the big bad wolf of the right in the sheep's clothing of the left to me, or maybe like all the animals are just drunk and gettin' it on for the evening.

For the record I'm >90% sure single parents already receive child benefits. I would not want that taken away. However, if we live in this crazy town world of vice taxes and seat belt laws - then yes, it makes total and utter sense and would be stupid not to provide some form of financial incentive, perhaps linked to marriage/civil unions, that provides an additional financial carrot to raising children in stable multiple parent families. Those familial units pay off for society, in bulk, over the long term.

What's your opinion on this whole gay marriage thing?

Long past due.