Currently. But this is about a lot more than that. This is one step toward our relationships being recognized by every level of government across the country.
The problem truly is that too many people DO NOT see this as a civil rights issue. This whole immutability thing allows folks to think that this issue is a issue on morality and not an issue on equal rights at all. I hionestly feel that folks are not bigoted, but that they simply do not fcrame this issue in those terms. How many folks out there gladly say, “I have no problem with gay folks or civil unions, but say no to marriage.” There were a lot who said this, but how can that make any sense unless you think of it only in moral terms and not in the language of rights and equality?
I’m a bit confused, what exactly is the difference from a legal standpoint between a “civil union” and a “marriage”? Are there certain benefits that are derived from “marriage” that are not enjoyed by “civil union” status?
I mean this in the sense of legal status, benefits, etc, not so much as having “recognition” across all levels of the government.
I parse this statement as “Call The People bigots and stupid, instead of convincing them that their views are bigoted/discriminatory/oppressive/unfair/wrong/illogical, will just gain more opponents.” Which doesn’t make sense, aside from the incendiary use of “stupid”, which only applies some of the time.
The point of the movement is expose how measures like this are discriminatory/bigoted. So how are we supposed to explain that it is discriminatory without using the words discriminatory and bigoted?
And I disagree, strongly, that “just” the opponents will be rallied. There’s a whole lot of people out there who didn’t vote, and those are the people that we’re protesting for and working to gain the support of.
There are, I believe, 1,984 federal rights associated with marriage. None of these rights are given to people in civil unions. For example, a couple in a civil union cannot file as married on their tax return, and civil unions do not alter immigration status (I believe).
So the answer is categorically yes.
In CA they are essentially the same. Other states have passed various measures that give Same Sex Couples some rights or recognition. (It runs the gamut from a ‘registry’ that really means nothing except they have noted that you are together up through the CA domestic partnership laws.)
From another thread on this topic.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10414620&postcount=9
And I won’t requote my posts from that thread, but my argument boiled down to:
Even if legally they WERE identical in every way, society does not treat people who are in in long term unmarried relationships with the same level of seriousness and respect as they treat married couples. The word does mean something.
This is true of couples of any sexual orientation.
If you are married and want to prove this to youself, take off your wedding ring for a week and walk around calling your spouse your boyfriend/girlfriend instead of wife or husband. Or simply think how it would feel to be told that your marriage didn’t count anymore.
This may resonate more strongly for me as a newlywed, but I suspect it will still resonate even with those who aren’t.
Well, as far as the federal government is concerned, gays can’t get married or form civil unions or domestic partnerships. So talking about the federal benefits of marriage vs civil union is premature at this point.
Well it would seem that** Antinor **and villa’s responses are somewhat at odds with one another, or, they just vary from state to state.
It almost seems like a “what’s in a name” kind of thing in some respects. I just can’t understand why all local, state and federal governments cannot get behind this idea that gay people are just like everyone else except they are gay, and therefore should enjoy the same benefits of marriage as legally defined under law as anyone else does, should they choose to marry.
Besides the obvious religious-borne paranioa about all this, has anyone ever conducted studies, etc to try to present a factual case as to why gay people cannot or shouldn’t be married?
You know, something like “Health insurance studies have shown that gay people are far more likely to die earlier/get sicker than their hetero counterparts due to reason Y”, thereby driving up everyone’s health insurance premiums.
Has there been anything like that presented as a case against gay marriage, or is it all a bunch of religious hand-wringing?
Villa’s response speaks to the federal government. As far as the feds are concerned, samesex couples are essentially strangers. My response was in regard to state governments.
It isn’t just about religion, it’s about protecting the children from the ghey…not that there’s anything wrong with it…except, you know, my children and stuff.
Who would have thought that in the days after the election that there would be more threads about something other than Obama/McCain?
I am far from what anyone would consider a Liberal. I think that Affirmative Action should be abolished. I am very pro-business. I am at best a moderate on environmental issues. Furthermore, my sexuality is as straight as straight gets. I have never been to a political protest in my life. That is about to change.
Tonight from 5:00-6:30 pm there will be a candlelight vigil at De La Guerra Plaza in downtown Santa Barbara. I never leave work early but I will be leaving early for this.
This is not about compassion. This is about fundamental rights and justice. I won’t stand for this and I will do everything that I can legally to make this right.
Awesome!
I’d be even more awesome if all those protesting this would have gone to the polls and voted NO , instead of staying home.
Of course, an amendment to a state constitution directly violates the U.S. Constitution, it can be overthrown by the Federal courts.
Too bad there isn’t a precedent that says that an amendment to a state constitution specifically designed to remove rights from homosexual citizens without any other effect or justification is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. Oh, wait…!
In Romer, the Court invalidated a provision of the state constitution that would have prohibited the state or any city/county therein from making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
That’s a fair distance from this law.
I don’t know too many Court observers who believe that this current Court would find an Equal Protection right to same-sex marriage in the federal constitution.
Do you?
Good for you! This ban is really depressing me. I had high hopes for California.
Today’s Tom Toles cartoon.
I think you’re wrong, there. The term “bigot” is a powerful pejorative in our society, to the extent that even a lot of white separatist groups avoid using it. Most people don’t want to think of themselves as bigots. Demonstrating that opposing equality for gays is undeniably a form of bigotry can be very successful in getting people to change their minds about SSM. For quite a few people out there, the obsession with “protecting” marriage is going to prove to be a lot weaker than their aversion to being identified as a bigot.
Of course, how one goes about making this argument is important. Getting up in somebody’s face and screaming, “Fuck you, you fucking bigot!” isn’t likely to change any minds. You’ve got to use reason and logic and strong analogies to the other civil rights movements from our history. Done right, it’s a very potent tactic.
Just wanted to throw in that there’s going to be a march in SF tonight. Whether or not anyone will pay attention to what SF thinks, I don’t know, but I’m going anyways. I do think protests can be a good tool here - people who don’t care too much, I think, tend to go with the crowd, so we need to get out there and let everyone know that there are a whole lot of us that DO care, and don’t want this crap in our constitution. We only lost by a few percent, we can do better next time!
Absolutely awesome political cartoon. Thanks!