The Gay Agenda

[Ciscokid]

I'm not going to fit into anyone's cookie-cutter ideal of normal in order to get rights or acceptance. I get rights because I'm a human being and we're all created equal and deserve equal rights and you're kidding yourself if you think I want yours or anyone's acceptance. If I want to have a house with a white picket fence and a wife and 2.5 kids and a dog and a minivan then I will. If I want to dress up in some wild costume and parade through the streets then you better believe that's exactly what I am going to do.

I don't think I'd ever go to a pride parade like that, but for the first time in history GLBTQ* people are starting to get more rights and not be afraid of being put to death. This is why things like that do occur, we're like teens who just got the car for the night for the first time ever and while we're getting places we're going to do some crazy things in our excitement like speeding or even hitting a mailbox.

I don't know ANY gays that are afraid of being put to death. I don't disagree necessarily with what you state but you do come off as having a persecution complex.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't know ANY gays that are afraid of being put to death.

I imagine they used to be.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Matthew Sheppard's mom spoke at a lecture at my community college. I remember most vividly that someone asked her about those people at the pride parades who are dressed in such a manner, and she said that she truly wished that the news would concentrate just as much on showing the couples who've been together forever, the happy families that they have raised, and others who march in the parade. I wonder how much airtime those people have been given as compared to the more 'attention-getting' outfits and behavior.

 

[jamaesi]

I don't know ANY gays that are afraid of being put to death. I don't disagree necessarily with what you state but you do come off as having a persecution complex.

And you come off as being rude.

There are still laws in this world that say homosexuals should be put to death. Sodomy was illegal in the USA until a few years ago. Homosexuals are regularly murdered in this country.

 

[Jaymes]

I don't know ANY gays that are afraid of being put to death.

Things may be looking up in our neck of the woods (if "looking up" means "we're not getting dragged out into the street and shot"), but in many other places it's still a crime to be gay. As we speak, a bill is trying to be passed to make homosexuality (not homosexual acts; homosexuality) worthy of jail time in Russia. It would also make it a crime for gay people to congregate. People are still hung in parts of the Middle East for being gay. Even in the US hate crimes against gay people aren't uncommon; pretty much everyone in the GLBTQ community knows someone that's had it happen to them.

 

[Green Gaia]

Matthew Sheppard's mom spoke at a lecture at my community college. I remember most vividly that someone asked her about those people at the pride parades who are dressed in such a manner, and she said that she truly wished that the news would concentrate just as much on showing the couples who've been together forever, the happy families that they have raised, and others who march in the parade. I wonder how much airtime those people have been given as compared to the more 'attention-getting' outfits and behavior.

Exactly. They're outrageous so they get the attention, it may not be my cup of tea (I'm really boring), but I recognize that they have a right to be themselves and just because it's not the "norm" that should not exclude them from life, liberty and happiness.

 

[Polaris]

To avoid derailing the "official election" thread I'm responding here.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

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.

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.

It seems like the main difference between marriage and civil unions from a legal standpoint is the lack of general and consistant recognition of the union at a federal level. Is that what you would consider the most important difference?

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't know ANY gays that are afraid of being put to death.

Ask any GBLTQ youth in rural America about that then.

 

[Green Gaia]

It seems like the main difference between marriage and civil unions from a legal standpoint is the lack of general and consistant recognition of the union at a federal level. Is that what you would consider the most important difference?

On the legal end of it, yes. Also, states do not have to recognize civil unions from another state, so again creating a disparage between the two. Even if civil unions were completely equal to civil marriage, one cannot ignore the "separate by equal" situation that would create.

 

[Polaris]

On the legal end of it, yes. Also, states do not have to recognize civil unions from another state, so again creating a disparage between the two. Even if civil unions were completely equal to civil marriage, one cannot ignore the "separate by equal" situation that would create.

Right.

So why do you care that any state or government entity recognize your partnership? Is it mainly for the financial benefits?

How does the government's lack of recognition for your union impede upon your freedoms and happiness?

I don't mean these questions to come across as condescending, I just want to get to the heart of the issue.

 

[MaddLlama]

It seems like the main difference between marriage and civil unions from a legal standpoint is the lack of general and consistant recognition of the union at a federal level. Is that what you would consider the most important difference?

And a lot of those differences and inconsistancies can severly interfere with the lives of couples, especially ones with children. Right now, if two women are in a relationship and have a child and one of the women is ill, in an accident or dies, there is no guarantee that her partner can retain custody of the child. The biological grandparents of that child have a better legal claim on her guardianship than the child's "other" mother, even if the child has never met her grandparents. If they petition for guardianship, the state has little choice but to grant it. Not to mention that only the child would be able to visit in the hopsital if one of her mother's was ill.
These are just examples of the reasons why gay couples want to have equal benefits. It's not about subverting the religious, it's about being able to take care of themselves, thier relationships and thier children just like normal heterosexual couples.

 

[Green Gaia]

So why do you care that any state or government entity recognize your partnership? Is it mainly for the financial benefits?

For the same reason hetersoexual couples do. Do you question them?

How does the government's lack of recognition for your union impede upon your freedoms and happiness?

Gay and lesbian couples are not able to protect their partners as well as heterosexual couples do without the right to marry.

 

[Polaris]

And a lot of those differences and inconsistancies can severly interfere with the lives of couples, especially ones with children. Right now, if two women are in a relationship and have a child and one of the women is ill, in an accident or dies, there is no guarantee that her partner can retain custody of the child. The biological grandparents of that child have a better legal claim on her guardianship than the child's "other" mother, even if the child has never met her grandparents. If they petition for guardianship, the state has little choice but to grant it.

Even if a will has been established indicating who the child should go to?

 

[Green Gaia]

Even if a will has been established indicating who the child should go to?

In some states yes, such as mine. Such was the fervor to ban not only same gender marriage, but to make civil unions unattainable, legal contracts between two people of the same gender can now be called into question and deemed uninforcable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Even if a will has been established indicating who the child should go to?

And here's the point: why should there be, if it would be different for a heterosexual couple?

 

[MaddLlama]

Even if a will has been established indicating who the child should go to?

Yes. Because civil unions don't grant legal kinship. So, someone who was a blood relative of the child could legally contest the will, and succeed in getting guardianship of the child. Civil unions and domestic partnerships don't protect partners or children in these respects.

 

[Polaris]

For the same reason hetersoexual couples do. Do you question them?

I honestly couldn't care less whether the government formally recognizes my marriage. For me it is a religious and personal committment. Sure the small financial benefits are nice, but they have no effect on our relationship or happiness. Most of the financial benefits associated with marriage have more to do with the children.


Now I do agree that there are some pretty lame restrictions for non-married partners. Hospital visitation rules, for example, are sometimes ridiculous.

Gay and lesbian couples are not able to protect their partners as well as heterosexual couples do without the right to marry.

Protect in what ways?

 

[Polaris]

Yes. Because civil unions don't grant legal kinship. So, someone who was a blood relative of the child could legally contest the will, and succeed in getting guardianship of the child. Civil unions and domestic partnerships don't protect partners or children in these respects.

That sounds more like a problem with the authority of written wills than the restrictions of civil unions. A mother should be able to will her child to whoever she wants independent of familial or civil ties.

 

[Green Gaia]

I honestly couldn't care less whether the government formally recognizes my marriage. For me it is a religious and personal committment. Sure the small financial benefits are nice, but they have no effect on our relationship or happiness. Most of the financial benefits associated with marriage have more to do with the children.[/quote]

Well good for you. I still don't see you questioning heterosexual couples on why they want a civil marriage, nor did you turn down the privilege of marriage, did you?

BTW, many same gender couples today do have children, or want children. Do their children not matter as much as heterosexual couple's children?

Protect in what ways?

Please refer to the list MaddLlama already posted.

 

[Green Gaia]

That sounds more like a problem with the authority of written wills than the restrictions of civil unions. A mother should be able to will her child to whoever she wants independent of familial or civil ties.

You're ignoring the real issue. Same gender parents shouldn't have to get a will to ensure that the non-biological parent keeps custody in the event of the death of the biological parent. If they were able to be married and joined legally, it wouldn't be an issue.