Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[Green Gaia]

Note: it's 2 years old, some minor details might have changed (such as Conn. now has marriage equality), but the principles are the same.

 

[No*s]

I didn't read through the whole thing and saw some people alluding to what I'm about to ask, but why don't we just abolish state intervention in marriage altogether and simply reduce all marriages to civil unions? Marriage is a cultural vestige hearkening back to another type of state. It is justified either by viewing women as property or as a necessary religious practice. Outside of that, it remains a cultural fossil that people who believe and people who don't practice. Regulating it inevitably entails regulating the conscience, and that, I believe, ought to be a no-no for the government.

 

[LuisDantas]

I may be mistaken, but the Slate article about the DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - seems to imply or state that marriages have a degree of international recognition that civil unions lack. A few couples have been through difficult decisions for that reason, to the point of having to move into Canada to enjoy full rights.

 

[No*s]

I may be mistaken, but the Slate article about the DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - seems to imply or state that marriages have a degree of international recognition that civil unions lack. A few couples have been through difficult decisions for that reason, to the point of having to move into Canada to enjoy full rights.

I was unaware of that. Thanks for the information; I'll have to think on it (I guess, I've now revealed my position on gay marriage that I've concealed as well ).

 

[Watchmen]

Not going to read 17 pages.

In California, domestic partnerships and marriage are essentially the same (except for the name). I don't agree with separate but equal. However, the equal state legal status is there for same sex couples.

 

[Green Gaia]

Not going to read 17 pages.

In California, domestic partnerships and marriage are essentially the same (except for the name). I don't agree with separate but equal. However, the equal state legal status is there for same sex couples.

But it's not an equal legal status because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized by the federal government, therefore denying gay couples in the very few states that do have civil unions or domestic partnerships access to federal marriage benefits. And if they move out of the state, they lose the few state rights they had. They are NOT the same and they are NOT equal.

 

[Watchmen]

But it's not an equal legal status because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized by the federal government, therefore denying gay couples in the very few states that do have civil unions or domestic partnerships access to federal marriage benefits. And if they move out of the state, they lose the few state rights they had. They are NOT the same and they are NOT equal.

Of course. But Prop 8 and California domestic partnerships are not federal issues - they are state issues. AND, even if California called same gender unions "marriages" - that doesn't mean the Feds will recognize them.

Within California: Essentially the same.

Outside California: Of course they are different.

 

[deseretgov]

But it's not an equal legal status because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized by the federal government, therefore denying gay couples in the very few states that do have civil unions or domestic partnerships access to federal marriage benefits. And if they move out of the state, they lose the few state rights they had. They are NOT the same and they are NOT equal.

I think that's the point. Because the legalization of Homosexual marriages in a few states forces other states to accept those marriages as legal. What if one state want's to keep homosexual marriages illegal, and a homosexual couple, lawfully married in another state, moves to that state? It would force that state to break it's own laws thus violating the rights of that state.

So who's right do we support? The right of homosexuals to federal benefits? Or the rights of states to make(and keep) their own laws?

 

[Green Gaia]

So who's right do we support? The right of homosexuals to federal benefits? Or the rights of states to make(and keep) their own laws?

And if a state wants to outlaw interracial marriages, or forbid blacks from owning property, or make it a crime to be a Mormon? You'd be OK with those things happening too and wouldn't fight it?

 

[Green Gaia]

I think that's the point. Because the legalization of Homosexual marriages in a few states forces other states to accept those marriages as legal.

Actually that's not true. Same gender marriages performed in Massachusetts (and now Connecticut) have no legal standing as a couple in other states that do not have gay marriage.

 

[deseretgov]

Response to first post:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Response to second post:
Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.