Proposition 8 in California

[jonesbeach10]

another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law. There was an article in the paper here recently that was about meetings lawyers and activists were having with gay couples advising them of the restrictions that were still in place. Social security benefits, for instance, will not be paid to the surviving spouse in a gay marriage.

I'm guessing that same sex couples in Connecticut now would receive any state benefits that Connecticut has for hetero (married) couples, but not any federal benefits.

They actually have for a while. There have been civil unions in CT for a number of years now. The whole marriage thing started when 8 couples applied for marriage licenses, were obviously rejected, and then sued the state on the basis that a civil union is not a marriage, and that there shouldn't be separate rights for different people.

Is there a difference in rights between civil unions and marriage in CT? I mean, if walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

[popcornjack]

another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law. There was an article in the paper here recently that was about meetings lawyers and activists were having with gay couples advising them of the restrictions that were still in place. Social security benefits, for instance, will not be paid to the surviving spouse in a gay marriage.

I'm guessing that same sex couples in Connecticut now would receive any state benefits that Connecticut has for hetero (married) couples, but not any federal benefits.

They actually have for a while. There have been civil unions in CT for a number of years now. The whole marriage thing started when 8 couples applied for marriage licenses, were obviously rejected, and then sued the state on the basis that a civil union is not a marriage, and that there shouldn't be separate rights for different people.

Is there a difference in rights between civil unions and marriage in CT? I mean, if walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

From a legal standpoint, no. A civil union provides all the same state level benefits as a marriage does. A civil union is just a state's way of saying "We don't want to tangle with the thorniness of this issue so we'll offer the same thing and call it differently." I guess technically a hetero couple could enter into a civil union if they wanted to, I don't really see what the difference between that and getting married by a justice of the peace at the courthouse is. The issue of marriage was brought up because it stank of discrimination to people, but if the marriage is only recognized in CT and only affords benefits from CT and does not include federal benefits, then there really is no other difference. In fact, it brings into play a whole other set of issues, like what if the couple moves to another state and then wants to get divorced? Do they have to move back to CT for it to be finalized?

[FunkHouse9]

Taking religion and same-sex out of the equation, besides the name, what is the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union"?

That's what I was thinking. I don't know if there are any differences.


Olbermann's commentary sounded like sour grapes to me, although I'm not sure if he did this a lot before the election.

When I look up "civil union" it basically says that it is the same-sex word for marriage. If this is just semantics, it's bs that we're arguing over a title. So essentially, gays can get married, so long as they don't use the word "married." Give me a friggin break. We're discriminating over who is allowed to use a word use a word.

[TropicalTroubador]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

"Marriage" is also a legal, civil contract in pretty much every state in the nation. I do not believe that any person's religion should be applied to determine who can sign a legal/civil contract in the United States, due to that little thing called the First Amendment.

Want to live where religion is also the law of the land? Try Iran, or Libya.

[TropicalTroubador]

I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

The bill that's up before the legislature won't be voted on until 2009, what has happened in Connecticut is the the State Supreme Court has indicated that banning gay marriages is discriminatory. So, no law yet, but movement in that direction. I'm sure there will be challenges and maybe even a California-like ballot question during the next election.
Always interesting.

Apparently there was a measure on the ballot this year to ban gay marriage, or to open the process to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Whatever it was, it lost. One of the more interesting quotes I read concerning gay marriage in CT came from a group that is opposed to it. They said that marriage regulations are based on biology and not bigotry, referring to matters of procreation.

Then why allow people to marry who can't or don't want to have children? Do we begin administering fertility tests to all people seeking to marry?

[TropicalTroubador]

I still like Tina Fey's "Palin" quote: "Marriage should be a sacred commitment between two unwilling teenagers." (or something like that)

[tikitatas]

I am grateful that the Supreme Court in my country saw fit in July of 2005 to rule that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose NOT to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.

My spouse and I have all the benefits and obligations of all other married couples in Canada.

[pbans]

I am grateful that the Supreme Court in my country saw fit in July of 2005 to rule that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose NOT to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.

My spouse and I have all the benefits and obligations of all other married couples in Canada.

As it should be.......I'm glad too, Cate.

[sonofabeach]

Ya know....I used to be against gay marriage but now I feel like hey it's not me so why should I give a damn?

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Just an observation: The largest "new" voting block in California is the Hispanic community. While they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, they are also Catholic and very traditional. I have had many conversations with my Hispanic friends and neighbors and have been told that they voted heavily in favor of Prop 8.

That's exactly right, Corey. I saw a voting map for prop 8 yesterday or the day before in the Times...the cities in SoCal that are predominantly hispanic voted for 8, those that are predominantly non-hispanic voted against it. Between the lies and the pressure from the Mormon and Catholic churches, defeating prop 8 never had a chance.

Interestingly, my gay friends have been together longer than most of my married friends. I need a scorecard to keep track of the divorces.

[mjeischen]

I'm a ------- (Auto Edit the L word - dANG!) trapped in a mans body and frankly I have no problems with this.

Two consenting adults should be able to express this to each other how ever they want. Civil Unions or Marriage. It makes no difference to me. Faith is a non-issue in that all of our faiths are different.

Jesus hung out with Hookers and their illicit sex and Romans with their freak ass orgies. He's not going to mind this or Prop K.

Free Love and Love for Free!

[ejr]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,

Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good."

[Salukulady]

"Jesus would have voted no on proposition 8"

[TheSecretsInTheCrust]

Its funny that there seems to be two stands from the gay friends I have. Some say they only want equal rights as a married hetro cpl gets and then others say its their right to be married. Seems to me that once the word "marriage" is used most straight's become defensive because it becomes a religious feeling. Regardless if the argument is religious or not. The truth is the majority of people equate marriage and religion as the same. I truely believe that without the word "marriage" this would have passed by a 2-1 margin.

[blackjack]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,

Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good."

Let me address your points one by one since you are making more than one point.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,
yup. Civil union.


Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.
That's your opinion and if you choose to see it as inferior, that's on you. But in my mind, it's NOT a marriage.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good

Again. you are assigning words "good" and "not good". Not my opinion. I think they are essentially the same except "Marriage" is a holy scarament and a civil union is not.

[ejr]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,

Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good."

Let me address your points one by one since you are making more than one point.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,
yup. Civil union.


Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.
That's your opinion and if you choose to see it as inferior, that's on you. But in my mind, it's NOT a marriage.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good

Again. you are assigning words "good" and "not good". Not my opinion. I think they are essentially the same except "Marriage" is a holy scarament and a civil union is not.

While I cannot speak for all who are not religious and/or are gay, I would feel, and I think most would feel that it is separate but not equal.

[SharkOnLand]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,

Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good."

Let me address your points one by one since you are making more than one point.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,
yup. Civil union.


Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.
That's your opinion and if you choose to see it as inferior, that's on you. But in my mind, it's NOT a marriage.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good

Again. you are assigning words "good" and "not good". Not my opinion. I think they are essentially the same except "Marriage" is a holy scarament and a civil union is not.

No matter your opinion, marriage in the eyes of the law has no religious requirement or component.

[ConchRepublican]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

I'll take some of your whip strikes (don't read anything into that!!!!)

I agree with you.

[TropicalTroubador]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,

Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good."

Let me address your points one by one since you are making more than one point.

So marriage is for religious people and those of us who are not religious, straight or gay would have to have a "Civil union" What about a couple of two different religions? What about couples that get married at City Hall rather than in their church or synagogue,
yup. Civil union.


Calling it a "civil union" stigmatizes it as not being a marriage, and, in many people's mind, not quite as good.
That's your opinion and if you choose to see it as inferior, that's on you. But in my mind, it's NOT a marriage.

This just strikes me as a fairly dangerous way of separating out the "good" from the "not quite as good

Again. you are assigning words "good" and "not good". Not my opinion. I think they are essentially the same except "Marriage" is a holy scarament and a civil union is not.

No matter your opinion, marriage in the eyes of the law has no religious requirement or component.

My point exactly.

"The last time people mixed religion and politics in America, people got burned at the stake."

(Historically incorrect quote - the alleged witches in Salem were hung, not burned. But the point is well-taken.)

[SuperTrooper]

It comes down to the use of a word with thousands of years of tradition behind it. Words mean things, and changing definitions to meet the demands of a contemporary shift in attitudes can make the word meaningless. The goal of the activist gay movement is to FORCE acceptance upon the general population. I support the right of same sex couples to enter into legal contracts with all the trappings related to marriage, but they just need to call it something else. I worked on the YES side of the NH civil unions legislation passed in 2007, with the idea that it was an acceptable alternative. If you can enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is, that affords you all the same protections and resposibilities, how can you argue that your rights have been violated?