The Cellar - Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Anyone being affected by Proposition 8? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18704)

It's now official in Washington State... Next is New Jersey :rolleyes:

MSNBC
2/13/12

Quote:

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a bill that legalizes
gay marriage in Washington state, making it the nation's seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
It's a historic moment, but same-sex couples can't walk down the aisle just yet.
The law takes effect June 7, but opponents are already mounting challenges on multiple fronts.<snip>

------------

In New Jersey on Monday, the state Senate passed a bill that
would allow nuptials for same-sex couples.
Gov. Chris Christie has said he will veto such legislation.
The Senate's vote sends the bill to the Assembly,
which is expected to pass it Thursday.<snip>

The governor has said he does not believe marriage laws should be changed,
but he does support New Jersey's civil union law,
which grants gay couples the legal protections of marriage.
Christie said he wants to put a change in the definition of marriage to a public vote.

But gay rights groups oppose a referendum.
They see gay marriage as a civil rights matter and argue that it should not
be up to the masses to protect the rights of a minority group.

Five years ago, New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have
the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In response, the Legislature created civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand
and still treats committed gays differently from married couples,
the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.

A lawsuit seeking to do that is in the state court system.

Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.

I'm pretty sure civil unions for hetero couples have been common in the US just as they have been in Australia, for quite a long time. At least since the 60's.

The issue is that civil unions generally don't afford ALL the benefits of marriage and legally is in a separate category. On top of that, and on top of the longstanding (and constitutional!) problem with "separate but equal", the federal Defense Of Marriage Act prevents civil unions OR gay marriages from "counting" at the federal level. I assume that civil unions are available to everyone regardless of gender, but there is no advantage to civil unions over marriage, and quite a host of drawbacks. I'm sure it's not common, but it happens.

I believe whether the benefits are the same depends upon the state.
In VT, for example, they are the same. However those Civil Unions in VT may or may not be recognized in other states.

ETA ... thats not entirely true... read this. I can't paste it because its a pdf.

Civil Unions in this country are for same-sex couples only.
To start with I thought we were progressive in introducing them at all. And certainly the gay press seemed to have that opinion.

After a few years now I am of the opinion that separate but equal doesn't cut it.
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 794910)

Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.

Hetero civil unions exist in the US, and are called marriages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 794966)

There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 794966)

Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.

This is my personal solution, too. The government shouldn't be in the business of validating religious ceremony. The civil contract legally uniting two adults, whether you call it a "civil union" or a "marriage", should be an ENTIRELY secular affair from the point of view of the government, and I think the way to do that is to not ("re")define marriage as between a man and a woman OR as between anyone, but to change the law so that the government recognizes ONLY civil unions that are the same as what are now recognized by the name of marriage.

Let the "religious" have the WORD "Marriage" for their religious ceremonies and let the legal term with all benefits and whatever be "Civil Union" keeping the two separate.

Next!
We have much larger issues to deal with.

What's the adjective you would put next to the box on forms instead of "married?"
Civil unionized? Civilized?

Civilly unioned?

Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion.

uncivilly de-unioned?

non-civilly disenunioned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 795159)

Then when you break up you are?

FREEEEEEEEEEEE

Single
Engaged
In a Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed

I don't see the issue.

Quote:

Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion.

un-union = un-unionized = ionized