Don't you think I would if it was legal?  We don't even get thrown the civil union consolation prize. We get nothing.


EDIT: Nevermind. Bad idea. I retract this statement. Foolish thing to say.

How are you not equal?  B/C of the name "marriage"?

Believe me, marriage isn't all that great.  Then just add kids to the equation and PRESTO you have a marriage.

Seriously, if you have the same LEGAL rights, the same ability to have a wedding, and you, as a woman, can have kids, what difference does it make wtf it is called.  Does anyone from the governement run around and fine you if you call you and your other married??

Can't have marriage, Can't  have a civil union. Can't have any legal recognition of my relationship on either the state or federal level. And even if I could have it at the state level still can't have it at the federal level.



Straight people talking about how marriage actually sucks is kind of amusing.  If a relationship sucks then the marriage will suck. My relationship does not suck.




I don't have any of the legal rights or privileges conferred by marriage or civil unions or the ability to gain them short of uprooting myself and moving to a different state.  Pretty unreasonable situation.

you could form a corporation and achieve all the property rights.

And of course no one has ever done this in a straight relationship.  I know a few people who di d it to get into family housing in college.  I also new a lesbian and a gay guy that did the same thing.

I knew a lesbian who married a straight guy because they'd get more in taxes that way.

If I formed a corporation it would be so we could both legally possess  the same C3 firearms ;)

But having to do so to get basic relationship rights that straighties take for granted is unacceptable.

Many companies offer "domestic partner" benefits on insurance, perks and other benefits.  Often, this is a one page affirmation document, no marriage/civil union/power of attorney document required.

The "test" for legitimacy is a straw-man argument.  The societal benefits given to married couples is primarily a function of child rearing.  Childless couples (of any stripe) are free riders on the system that is intended primarily for the expansion of the tax base, from a policy perspective.

This is a far enough point, however, as a functional matter, if you want the hospital visitation rights, right of survivorship, etc. then you should have a will, trust and power of attorney to provide for these things, regardless of the legislation on the books regarding the government's view of the status of your relationship.

I understand your point completely, and by way of disclaimer, I am not an attorney.  However, the codification of the rights you suggest is within your grasp.

And the reason many companies do this is because gay couples aren't legally recognized by the state.

If we had government recognition of civil unions for all couples, then companies could make civil union a requirement for benefits, much the same way marriage is required for straight couples right now.

I disagree with that too.  Why should some idiots get benefits just because they shat out a kid? Hell, people do that just to get more benefits, which certainly doesn't help the tax base.

Government out of marriage and private life.

I know. My point simply is (and I'm a big supporter of GLBT rights, just making a point) is that everything that can be gained in marriage can also be gained through a complicated set of legal documents and tax strategies. I've helped a couple of couples along those lines in the past. The only thing the law will never give is social acceptance...... that has to come from the people.

Simply because there is no way to continue to expand the tax base and economy short of children, be they ours or ones we import.  I'm not saying that homosexuals can't be loving, excellent parents.  In my own experience, I know a half a dozen lesbian couples with children who are well-adjusted and not wards of the state.  

However, it cannot be denied that, by and large, the promotion of the raising of children, usually at great cost to the parent(s), is generally a positive for society.

Without children, our way of life will die.  Perhaps it deserves to, if society is too self-absorbed.  This fact alone justifies the very minimal tax breaks gained from claiming children.  Trust me, I doubt when civil unions are codified, the gays will empty out the orphanages in an attempt to lower their tax burden.

This is, for better or worse, the ultimate goal of the gay marriage agenda.  The problem is, that unlike racial prejudice, the law is a rather blunt and ultimately ineffectual instrument in changing personal behavior or beliefs, especially those derived from religious belief.  When people are forced to chose between religious belief and the law, the law will fail and the legitimacy of the government will falter.

My apologies, late though they are.  I didn't know you didn't have civil unions.  My point was in civil unions vs. "marriage", but I completely disagree w/ any law that denies same sex partners from having the same rights as a oposite sex partners.  Every committed couple should have legal recognition of that commitment.  It bothers me to think of a "partner" dying and having their life savings, etc, taken by worthless bastard family members that have "priority" due to a lack of recognition of that union.

My thing is IF you had the option of civil union, (yes, I know you don't now) as in a box to check at the courthouse, based upon the sex of the applicants, then what is the big deal.  BTW, is that a picture of you in your avatar?

I'm just surprised it took 2 pages to get there...

If the "civil union" box was what everyone checked on government forms I'd be fine with that. I don't really like the idea of "separate but equal" on the government level but if it was civil unions from the gov and marriage from your religion then that's right on by me

and I am in fact my own avatar. :)

Wow, I guess we agree then.  I understand your "separate but equal" notion, but is it really all that separate?  Once the ink is dry, the civil union group isn't sectioned of from society, or put in separate schools, restaurants, jobs, etc.  No one forces people to wear a badge that says "I am married to the same sex", or anything.  

All jest aside in the marriage joke I made originally, everyone should have the ability to be recognized as a couple legally.  I think where many people get tied up is in the def of marriage.  On a religious level, well, it depends on your religion.  Then again someone's "religion" could call it "blood bound" for all that matters.  On a legal level, it has always been one thing, a marriage being a man and a woman.  What is being asked for, in the gay community, is a legal union of some kind, wherein, civil union comes into play.

You remind me of my wife in your pic.  Kind of wierd.  That's a good thing too.  My wife is hot.

Well said and I agree with this.

Damnit, I said it first!!

Why is ARFCOM so obsessed with homosexuality ?  

OK, the way I see it is this:

I'm married and straight. All my shit when I die goes to Mrs Pic.

If she dies first, all her shit goes to me.





OK, let's say i was gay. I die. It's now a hash.

My partner dies, it's a hash.




As a gay person, do I not have a right to pass my shit on to someone without having Uncle Sam swipe 80% of it?

I see civil unions as being able to take on a lifelong partner.







Sex?

None of .gov's business. Uncle has no business in the bedroom.

Marriage is a bit different. It's between a man and a woman that want to have kids.

Truth is, if you have a second (or 3rd or 8th) marriage after your child bearing years, it's really nothing more than a civil union in disguise.(IMHO)

Not immediately, it's usually when the second kid is born that everything grinds to a halt.

Yes. Because the  implication is that the government is saying my relationship is not as valid as  a "real marriage".  It's just insulting.

Marriage has benefits?

not married

Im probably just begging to be lit up, by roommate and I did that back in late '90s.  

How is it fraud? They are living together and obviously care for each other in some way (friends?).

Does it matter that they are not sleeping with each other? For the record, I would be OK with this if it was a guy with a girl.



 

A will or trust fixes this problem.  If you have any significant property within a marriage, it should probably be held in trust anyway.  For example, I know a couple of physicians who have most of their assets in revocable or irrevocable trusts.

As a functional matter, if you have a spouse or children, you need a will.  Period.  Its the cheapest insurance you will ever buy.

If this is the primary reason for civil unions/gay marriage, then it isn't a compelling reason.  Sorry, but the government shouldn't be "saying" anything about the goodness or badness of relationships, period.  Really, gay folks don't want to go down this road, because the polling indicates that the majority of Americans don't want gay marriage.

There are any number of people who find any number of government actions "insulting."  That alone doesn't justify anything.  Arguing an equal protection argument is compelling.  Using the government as a proxy for society to make a certain segment feel good about themselves isn't a compelling legal or public policy argument.  Does AnnaTrocity's relationship with her girlfriend change a wit if Screechjet says "I approve?"  How about all of ARFCOM, or everyone in Agusta, GA?  Nope.

For example, I could really care less about civil unions/gay marriage.  I've got gay friends and family who are absolutely stuck on the issue, but sorry, it isn't my bag, baby.  So, if the LGBT community wants to overturn thousands of years of precedent and tradition, they are going to have to come up with some really compelling reasons to do so.  Sorry, but that's how I roll.  Equal protection is one of those arguments.

For me,  a good thing is that civil unions will finally gender norm familiy law, especially WRT to the rights of fathers and their responsibilities, and the rights of mothers and their responsibilities.  What is interesting is to hear a lesbian attorney argue for gay marriage, and then defend the gender disparity in family law.  That's interesting mental gymnastics.  Men are routinely victimized in family law, and we're going to have some interesting times as judges figure out the requirements of a lesbian couple who divorces where one woman is the birth mother, but the other woman is the primary caretaker.

No, I don't see that.  Then again I'm difficult to insult.  It's a definiton.  It's what YOU make of it.  Just get "married" fill out the "civil union" paperwork and be happy.  Simple.  If you worry about what others think of you, you will never find happiness.

As to "not as valid", how is that the case?  In my situation, you have a GOV'T FORM  that has you choose between homosexual and heterosexual marriage.  All rights are bestowed the same among the two.  So WHY be insulted?

I, personally, as I've stated, don't have a problem w/ same sex partners being recognized in whatever way.  So what if you call it something different?

Why can't I fill out the "marriage" paperwork? Why does it have to be called something different? At it's core my lesbian relationship is really no different then my heterosexual ones have been.  I don't see the need for distinction therefore when I see people insist that there be a distinction I just have to wonder why.  If we're actually equal, why bother?



That's not really the issue. I think you misunderstand.



If the boxes said "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" that would be different. That would be acceptable.

The word "marriage" carries connotations outside of what the phrase "civil union" does.  Civil union implies a straight up legal tie. Marriage implies a deeper connection with legal benefits associated with it.  Even if legally they confer the same benefits I don't find it acceptable because I recognize that the implications of the words are not at all the same thing.

"Marriage" also has a long standing definition that describes the "civil union" of a man and a woman.  This is what gets people so riled up when gays and lesbians protest for gay marriage and NOT wanting civil unions.  And, yes, there are those that have other motives for getting riled up.  Also, as a private couple, as I said before, you can go to your church or whatever, declare yourself married to you and your friends/family, and no one can do anything about it. I'm not required to post my marriage certificate on my wall for all to see.

In essence, I agree with you on being able to form a legal union with your partner, man or woman.  I just don't get all the angst over what the gov't calls it on a onetime use piece of paper.  People lately are so tied up in what they are called, good or bad, and everyone gets all "offended".  I'm not saying you are, just, to me, it gets old.  

Tell you what though, one thing you get to live without is the idea of common law marriage, which I think is rediculous.  Either you are legally joined, or you aren't.

"Homosexual" has a long standing definition of being in the closet or socially ostracized and/or  dead.

Times are changing.  Most people have gotten past the idea that anyone engaged in a homosexual relationship is just well and truly fucked up. Gay couples now live their lives openly and most people are decently accepting of that. The  perception that male/female is the only valid relationship is outdated. Thus the way I see it the perception that "marriage" can only be a male/female relationship is outdated.  Time for change.



Good.
Civil union's for us and marriage for others is not good enough. Not acceptable.  If it was civil unions for all then it would be different.

Saw picture of lesbian demonstrator holding sign in vermont . Said "If we're equal would you trade my civil union for your marriage?". Don't imagine many would.  Think that says something about the core of the issue.  


I flipflop back and forth on whether or not I would accept a civil union. It would be beneficial on the personal level in the short run but would probably make matters more difficult in the long run.  At this point I think I've decided that I don't want the consolation prize.  Saw it as a stepping stone at one point. Now see it as a pitfall.

This is what gets me the idea of "acceptance".  There is government acceptance and then there is population acceptance.  Who gives a shit.  Hell, I got married when I walked down the isle, NOT when I went down to get the gov't paperwork.  In fact, I almost forgot about that.  If they were to tell me it was a civil union, I really don't think I would care.  Marriage is what I did in the church.  The legal recognition given, regardless of the name, is in order for certain things to happen, say for example, when you die, and where your shit goes.

I will say this, as was thrown in here earlier, there is also the reconciliation of what happens when children are involved.  Historically, it was all about biology, but now, you have "issues".  Not that hard to reconcile if you incorporate adoption, but still muddies the waters.  Actually, compared to gay men, you have the advantage b/c you can have children in many different ways.  Pushed further, there are TWO of you to make things happen.  A step further, you have an advantage over me and my wife, b/c getting pregnant was not a "cake walk" for her.  After a miscarriage, and a tubal, we have two now.

I honestly don't understand what the debate is.  If it is available to you, you have the same benefits and downsides to a marriage, yet it is somehow bad b/c it doesn't come with the same name.  Even though, you can freely walk around amongst people declaring your marriage to all, and all understand this.  

I think you stated that you would be fine w/ a form that said hetero/homo selection and that was fine.  Well, how is that different than marriage vs civil union on a form?  NOW, if forming a civil union did not convey THE SAME RIGHTS, as those in a marriage, then I would find a problem.  A label means what you want it to mean.  Like I keep saying marriage is in the heart and soul, not what the gov't tells you it is.