Anti-gay pol dies

The BBQ Pit
201

I am basically culturally conservative. However, I am open to the idea of a civil union benefit. And there are people who need it, like my friend’s mom and her sister, who would never be considered “married” in any sense.

I mean, they’re sisters, for crying out loud. Even if gay marriage is allowed, they probably wouldn’t be allowed to get married. Incest is still very much illegal.

They do, however, face many of the same problems faced by gay couples trying to set up a household. Fairness demands that a civil union benefit be available to them as well.

If the goal here is to strengthen the American family, and I agree that it is, how on earth can gay people justify denying benefits to these women? They raised a child together, and owned property. They have as much claim to a civil union benefit as a lesbian couple, if not more so.

202

Stupid me, I thought the goal was equal rights for homosexuals :smack:

203

You say that as if the two were mutually exclusive, DocCathode.

My goal, coming from my side of the aisle, is strengthening families. Gay activists, obviously, are all for equal rights for their group.

In the political environment we’re currently dealing with, the best way for both sides to move closer to their goal is with a reasonable civil union benefit that includes heterosexuals as well.

That has been my argument all along.

204

Thank you for admitting that strengthening families is “your goal” and not “the goal here.” It may not be mutually exclusive with equal rights for homosexuals, but I haven’t seen any other poster in this thread express any concern about it.

I repeat the question of other posters- Why does a woman need to enter into a civil union with her sister? As next of kin they already have all kinds of rights when it comes to medical care and inheritance. What rights are they missing that would be granted by civil union?

Now, lets look at OTTOMH Gobear and his partner. Should one of them end up in the ICU, can the other visit? Nope, immediate family only. When one dies, can the survivor claim their estate? Not without a really well-drafted will.

For a while, I thought that Spectrum was overreacting. Now I see his point. Gays and lesbians want the same rights granted to married couples. Your proposal would give them the same rights granted to roommates and siblings.

205

The biggest reason, not just for sisters but for gays, is that a spouse is not required to give incriminating testimony in court against the other spouse. No other relation, so far as I know, allows for that.

206

Libertarian If that’s the biggest reason, I can only conclude Mr Moto’s idea of strengthening families is having them commit crimes together and then chat about it.
“Why Mabel, this civil union is wonderful! Now I can finally share my favorite hobby with you- abducting and torturing the neighborhood pets!”

“I thought I was the only one who enjoyed that! To, think I’ve been your sister for nigh on fifty years and never knew we shared a love of torturing animals. It really makes you think.”

“Damn! The Green’s shnauser is at it again! Doesn’t that mutt ever shut up?”

“Oh, Mabel we’ll shut him up- forever!”

207

“Well Good Lord, man! I can’t support that!”–Opus the Penguin, discussing “nun-beating”.

Please subsitute Bricker for Mr. Moto in my post.

But I’ll stand by my statement that Spectrum’s proposed new “Department of Deep, Fulfilling and Meaningful Relationships for People in Luv and Very Committed to Each Other” is really, really stoopid.

I agree, but that goes for Spectrum’s screwball idea that only deeply mutually-fulfilling relationships count, too. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about people’s emotional state. If any two grownups want to register as a couple to get the benefits and rights, fine with me. And I don’t see how two old people who want tax relief or two platonic friends getting married someone cheapens Spectrum’s relationship either.

For me, I think that as a purely strategic matter, compromise is the way to go. Incrementalism. It’d be nice to get everything at once (and I support it–if the government must give benefits to couples (and I’d rather they didn’t, gay or straight), they had better damned well give the same benefits to everyone.) but let’s be honest: it ain’t gonna happen all at once. The better strategy, IMO, is to get something, even half-assed, Jim Crow-esqe, seperate-and-not-quite-equal stuff, and then use that as a springboard for the next step.

:: applauds ::

208

The right to joint-file their taxes for one.

But let’s forget the “sister” example and change it to “room-mate” and the answer becomes obvious.

209

The right to transfer property between them without being subject to taxation.

The right for the estate of one partner not being subject to inheritance taxes.

Automatic hospital visitation rights, and medical power of attorney.

Do you want me to run the whole list? It’s very familiar to gay activists. It’s all the complaints they have about being left out of marriage.

210

Now I’ve lost track.

Do civil unions have the same rights as marriage? If not, what rights do married people have that civilly united couples would not?

I can’t imagine people getting this hysterical if it is over what you call it.

Regards,
Shodan

211

Spectrum was terribly upset because people were going to be invited to his party that weren’t sufficiently in love, I guess.

212

I re-read this whole thread, and that’s exactly what I was thinking. I think that’s a damn good policy myself. And when Homebrew and Fenris agree on something, you know it’s in sight, must be all right.

But count me as someone else who has little idea of what spectrum was arguing for. Early in the thread he was ripping Mr. Moto for supporting civil unions as a first step towards SSM, arguing that civil unions weren’t a worthy goal because they weren’t equivalent to straight marriage. But then in a later post spectrum wrote

…which seems to be supporting civil unions as a first step. What’s the deal, here?

213

In the only US jurisdiction in which civil unions exist, Vermont, a civilly united couple has all of the same rights which the state of Vermont confers upon married couples.

A civilly united couple has none of the federal rights conferred upon a married couple. There was a report issued around the time DOMA was signed mentioning over 1000 federal issues relating to marriage. This has been interpreted as there being over 1000 “rights” associated with marriage but not having reviewed all 1000+ of them I don’t know if they’re all “rights.”

A married Vermont couple will have the marriage recognized outside the state of Vermont. A civilly united couple will not.

IIRC there is an issue with civil unions and taxation. I seem to remember reading that Vermont keys its state income tax rate to the federal rate, so with a civil union not being federally recognized for tax purposes a civilly united couple can end up paying more than a similarly situated married couple. Benefits plans under ERISA are free to ignore civil uions in determining eligibility (and one union has already announced its intention to ignore Massachusetts marriages). I’m sure there are other examples as well but I don’t plan to research.

As for people getting hysterical, it certainly seems that there is a great deal of hysteria on the anti-marriage side. They seem to get very upset indeed at the idea of calling a same-sex union a “marriage” and many of them are distraught at the idea of civil unions (they are “sham marriages”) or domestic partnerships (they are “sham civil unions” which make them I guess sham sham marriages). Even people who support the idea of extending rights to same-sex couples are hysterical at the idea of calling it “marriage.”

214

Exactly. The disparity would still exist. The current situation is wrong and evil because gay relationships are regarded as no more deserving of legal recognition than a friendship or the relationship between roommates, while the relationship of a heterosexual couple is regarded as worthy of extra legal recognition. That is not right.

Equating gay relationships as being the equivalent to a friendship or a roommate is not right. Bigot Moto’s system would continue to equate them thusly, therefore it is just as evil. Sure, it’d give us the rights, but those are only of limited worth if they come part in parcel with the continued spitting upon of our relationships, which is what equating them as being no more than friendships or roommates does.

I am willing to accept gay civil unions, which legally elevate gay relationships which are codified by a legal process above the level of friends or roommates, as a transitory step to marriage, which will happen in the next generation.

If straight couples get elevated in terms of recognition and privilege above the level offered to friends or roommates, then so too must gay couples be similarly, if not 100% equivelently, elevated. Elevating gay couples and friends/roommates to a new, higher level is not acceptable because it perpetuates the bullshit, bigoted notion that such relationships are equivalent, which they are not in any way.

In other words, I would accept the Vermont solution as a transitory step the Massachusetts situation. But whatever happens, it must place legal space between friends/roommates and members of codified gay unions. Otherwise, it’s worthless, and continues discrimination against gay couples.

The other acceptable solution would be to dissolve marriage altogether, and create a wide open civil union system for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But that would wreak civic havoc.

215

Is it stupid now? Because I’m seeking to create for gays is an equivalent system to what exists currently for straights. Theoretically, marriage is for people in love. It is an elevation of those relationships above the level of friend/roommate. I want (well, demand, for all the good it’ll do in this bullshit nation of scum and Baptists) gay marriages/gay civil unions to be similarly organized.

Here’s the current strata:

Married straight people.
/
/
/
Gay couples, unmarried straight couples, friends, roommates.

I am willing to accept:

Married straight people.
/
Gay couples with civil unions
/
Unmarried straight couples, ununioned gay couples, friends, roommates.

Under such a system, all people, regardless of the gender of their pair, have access to a system of elevated recognition and codified benefits. And, as you can see, gay couples who are thus committed have been elevated to a location befitting the fact that their relationships are more formalized and important than those of non-married/unioned couples, friends or roommates. Also, while straight marriage lamentably remains elevated above permanent gay couples, at least we’d no longer be legally equating permanent gay couples with friends or roommates.

Moto’s hateful little scheme would render things thusly:

Married straight couples
/
/
/
Everyone else

It maintains a large disparity in recognition between gay couples, who now have NO access to ANY form of elevated relationship, and continues to equate permanent gay couples with transient roommates or friends, and that’s simply not right. It’s discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The ideal would be:

Married couples (gay or straight)
/
/
/
All unmarried relationships

Under this scheme, everyone has access to an equal institution, regardless of the gender of their pair. Theoretically, only romantically linked couples would marry, but in truth any pair of persons who are not already married could enter into such a union, just as any mixed-sex couple can today.

216

Here’s and interesting article discussing some of the differences Otto touched on:

217

If you’ll look at my earlier posts, what I was advocating was a federal civil union benefit.

That is, actually, quite a radical thing to advocate, come to think of it.

I do not think however, traditional marriage can and should be jettisoned. There simply aren’t good reasons for doing so, especially if equivalent benefits in a civil union are present.

And I continue to believe that a civil union open to all is much fairer and easier to sell to the American people.

218

Again, you’re just wrong. There is no legal test for “love”. Hell, the idea of a couple entering into a loveless marriage of convienience is so common that it became a standard '70s sitcom trope. In the late '70s/early '80s, there was some tax reason (dunno what it was) that lots of really old people got married simply to get the tax benefits. There were a ton of news stories about it.

Unless you get a cite that shows that couples who want to get (legally) married (I don’t care about religous ceremonies for these purposes) have to be tested or something for the depth of their committment, or that there’re penalties for couples who don’t have a deep enough love, I’m calling “B.S.”

What is with you and “recognition”? Seriously. I don’t get it. Tax breaks? Cool. Legal rights (inheretance/visitation rights)? No prob. But “recognition”? "“elevation”? “formalized”? Who gives a damn? Go to the church of your choice if you want “elevation” and formalization. Take out an ad in the paper if you want recognition. None of that is the government’s job. And it’s not doing any of it now.

Hell, why would you accept less than equal rights except as a stepping stone to full rights?

How are you gonna test for romance? What would be the penalty for falsifying true-love?

Fenris

219

Well, Spectrum constant hysterical note squealing sounds not unlike the buzzing of a mosquito, he does make a point that gay relationships are devalued by society at large. Obviously, this can’t (and shouldn’t) be the business of government, but I, for one, grow tired of well-intentioned people referring to my partner as my “friend”–and yeah, I can hear the quotation marks when they say it. I got friends, but I don’t fuck’em, live with 'em, pool my income with 'em, or plan on buying a house with 'em. I’m just saying, is all. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

But as long as my partner and I can get hitched at a wedding chapel in Vegas and get every single benefit hetero married couples get, you can call it a civil union, a gay marriage, or Ethel Merman for all I care. Spectrum is making all this business far more complicated than it needs to be. He has a bright future in economic planning for the government.

220

A Miracle Max?

The Pain?