People in Saskatchewan have property? 
Well, it’s all communal… 
You could, but you’d have to have some kind of affadavit or document proving so. I mean, how can you prove that both you and your wife own the television you bought together, during your marriage, with funds from your joint checking account? Well, you don’t have to, you’re presumed to under the law.
But if you live with your same-sex partner, who under the law has no more status than a roommate, and your partner dies, then you’d better have some kind of documentation if you want to stop his hostile family from coming and taking the television that you owned jointly and walking out the door with it, or taking you through some kind of annoying and damaging process of small claims courts or lawyers and settlements and payoffs just so that you can keep what you and your partner always considered to be “yours” in the “what’s mine is yours, what’s your is mine and what’s ours belongs to us both in separate and in whole” sort of way.
To follow up on the adoption issue: Florida allows gay foster parents, but does ban adoption by gays. This means that kids can be raised from infancy in loving, qualified homes by gay couples, but then ripped away when “suitable” hetero couples are found for adoption. (See LetHimStay.com for details.) If gay foster parents (who aren’t living with a partner) try to adopt, they find that they’re asked to categorize their sexual orientation right on the application form (at one point it was the first question after name and address, before social security number or marital status) and of course, if they deny their homosexuality in order to keep the kids they’ve been raising, it’s fraud, which (if discovered) will invalidate the adoption.
Just Curious:
If a state allowed for a “Civil Union” and defined it as granting every single right and privaledge as a “Marriage” would that be acceptable by most gay citizens? Is there an issue of semantics where homosexuals would still feel discriminated against because their bond was not classified as a “marriage”?
It seems to me like all these whackjobs are so intent on protecting their so called “sanctity of marriage”. So fine, you can have your damn “Marriage” and make it mean whatever the hell you want. Just allow for something else entirely, something not called a marriage, that allows a couple to have all the same rights as a marriage does. Kinda like “Sparkling Wine”. Looks like Champagne, tastes like Champagne… but don’t piss off the French by calling it Champagne.
I know there are a lot of conservatives against Civil Unions. But are there homosexuals against them, too, since they wouldn’t be called “marriage”?
I guess I’m asking because if I ever saw something on the ballot for “Civil Unions”, I’m wondering how I should vote. And what particularly I should look for. Is a “Civil Union” good enough?? Or is it still making homosexuals out to be a lesser citizen?
You would then run into the problem of lack of reciprocity. As it stands, a married couple is still a married couple even if they are in a jurisdiction different from where they originally married. Every state, province and country would have to pass over-arching legislation concerning civil unions.
It also would not address the issue of gay couples who are married an come in from other jurisdictions.
And that still wouldn’t resolve the back of the bus issue.
That’s what I was getting at, thank you.
So, then. Let’s say - hypothetically - that my state wanted to institue a Civil Union clause in its constitution. (One like I described above)
Should I:
-
Vote for it, and hope that all the other states follow and allow reciprocity? And just accept that this is “As Good as it Gets”, despite the ‘Back of the Bus’ issue.
-
Vote for it, maybe thinking that it would eventually lead to an allowance of Gay Marriage in this state or other states.
-
Vote against it and hope that a “Gay Marriage” law eventually gets on the ballot?
Are Civil Unions simply unacceptable?
But wait. Even if a state allowed gay marriage, the other states don’t have to recognize it. Right? So even a state that allowed gay marriage would run into the problem of lack of reciprocity. Correct?
My opinion (standard disclaimers apply, your mileage may vary and all that): civil unions are helpful for some people and could give them a real benefit. If there were a proposition for civil unions, I’d vote in favor of it, because it’s a good thing for the people who want a civil union.
The only part I find unacceptable is saying that that’s the end of the line, as good as it gets, and that’s what gay couples need and want. They’re unrelated, because gay couples aren’t “friends.” I’d vote in favor of civil unions but would never take part in one*; I’d continue to support the right to be married.
*barring some completely unforseen circumstance that required it, of course.
A civil union is partial equality, which of course isn’t equality. But half a loaf is better than no bread, assuming those are your only choices. I was happy and supported it when the Quebec government passed civil unions in 2002; but I was happier when we got equal marriage in 2004.
Actually, I think this means that the other states do have to recognize it: Article IV of the U.S. Constitution
I’m not an American lawyer, so this is just a WAG, but I expect that this might run into trouble in states that might not have civil union legislation. It’s one thing to have reciprocity if you are basically on the same track, but quite another if you are divergent. For example, if one state were to permit same sex couples to marry, would that marriage be valid in other states?
Also, there is the problem of marriages to people outside of the USA. Would such marriages be recognized?
(As an interesting aside, here in Ontario we are prohibited from marrying another person if we are presently married, but if a person has a polygamous marriage from another jurisdiction, then that marriage is recognized in Ontario. I wonder if any states are considering such a provision concerning same sex marriages.)
Regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause, there are arguments on both sides. The disgustingly-named “Defense of Marriage Act” attempts to relieve the states of any requirement of recognizing a same-sex marriage performed in another state or jurisdiction (it was passed in advance of the creation of civil unions, thus is silent on the topic). There is also an exception to the FF&C clause for marriages which are against the “public policy” of a state. On the one side, there are those who believe this is sufficient to allow any state to ignore a SSM performed elsewhere, even absent a state law or constitutional amendment. There are those (including me) who believe that the fundamental right (as stated by the United States Supreme Court) of marriage must apply equally to mixed-sex and same-sex couples and that DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional and that FF&C in combination with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law require states to recognize SSM. This is an unsettled question of law simply because prior to MA’s legalizing SSM there was no possible way for an American legally married same-sex couple to challenge DOMA. To date the only challenge to DOMA has come in an obscure bankruptcy case in IIRC Washington state, upholding DOMA, but the case did not set any national precedent.
The only state I am aware of that might at this point recognize SSM performed elsewhere while not permitting SSM itself is New York. Its attorney general, Elliott Spitzer, issued an advisory opinion when various towns in New York were issuing marriage licenses and marrying gay couples last summer that New York law does not currently permit SSM but that it probably requires SSM from outside the state be recognized. There is also a case in New York of a civil union’s being treated as a marriage for legal purposes. A judge in Iowa dissolved a Vermont civil union last year (which decision is under appeal by state lawmakers who were inexplicably granted permission to intervene), and a Texas judge granted a divorce to a civilly united couple but later reversed himself when that state’s AG intervened in the case.