Civil Unions not as Good as Marriage--Washington Post

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

This article gives some evaluation of the current deficiency of Civil Union laws:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

This is heartbreaking. It is reminiscent of the "separate but equal" Plessy v. Ferguson decision that was ultimately struck down by Brown v. Board of Education Topeka.


I mean what can they do? The law says one thing, but it is hard to enforce especially when they have a federal law they can hide behind to justify their denial of benefits to gay couples. What needs to change is the law on the federal level.

Can they do acts of civil disobedience like picket this company, give them bad press? What will it do to their jobs? It's a hard call. At some point in time, NJ will have to realize that gay couples aren't going anywhere, and they are going to have to stop hiding behind their federal "mama's skirt" and deal with it. The companies that ignore the civil unions law need to count the cost. If it is worth the negative press they get when they deny their employees benefits, then fine. The gay couples can find another job. (Easier said than done, I know) but my point is this-if your job isn't going to take care of you and your legal spouse or whatever the definition is, move on to a place that will. You have to do what is best for your family.

At least they can file joint tax returns. That's more than we have in Texas.
This isn't going anywhere, and this upcoming election will certainly swing the pendulum, I just hope it is in the right direction for us.

Gay people aren't going anywhere. We live, work, love, and pay our taxes right here. The United States needs to deal with that. I am no political strategist, but the U.S is being royally embarrassed by Canada, and the UK.

[Daniel]

That's for posting the article Steven! It really highlights how separate is not equal.

Canada and the Uk have something else we don't have: universal health care.

[sjbouza]

Well, we all knew that it wouldnt work. It is just going to be have to handled in court. Once we get a good foot hold on some sort of marriage/civil unions in most states then it will be have to taken to court on a federal level. The DOMA needs to be challenged in court. It has been a proven fact that separate but equal just doesnt work. There is no such thing and this article proves it. If we didnt have the DOMA then the companies would have no leg to stand on in denying the benefits to same sex couples. But as long as that piece of discriminatory legislation is on the books we have very little if any chance of getting our true rights.

I just cant believe that in this country, as socially advanced as we claim to be, that people cant get past their "ewwwww ness" of same sex couples. That is all that it is. They just cant, in their small minds, understand that love is universal. It has no boundries. It cant be put in a box and defined as one single thing. It is a culmination of so much and so many levels. How can one legislate love, how can one define love? One cant!!!!! It is impossible. You may be able to put some words together for what love means to you, or even use the "generic" definition from the dictionary, but that still isnt all that love is. Love is different for each and every person.

You can put limits on love. I am speaking of love between two consenting adults. I just felt the need to put that there because you know that would be someone that wanted to pervert what I am trying to say.

The courts are going to be our only recourse. Our rights are being denied, the rights that are guaranteed to EVERY CITIZEN of the US. I dont remember seeing anywhere in the Constitution that said "only if you are straight, white, christian".

[BenL]

I read the article and agree with the majority opinion so far.

I have another facet of the benefits puzzle to relate. I work for a major U.S. news coporation (HINT: It's headquartered in NYC and Daniel often posts articles from it) which has offered domestic partner benefits for a number of years. When marriage became legal in Massachusetts three years ago, the company made marriage the gold standard for its MA employees to claim those benefits. (I'm pretty sure it's doing the same where there are civil unions.)

That change of policy took some gay couples -- and a few straight couples who were living together and claiming domestic partnership -- by surprise. It was odd for me to learn that there are some committed gay couples who don't want to get married for whatever reason. Some don't want to ape hetero society. Some say it will spoil what they have. :confused:

[Steven E. Webster]

I read the article and agree with the majority opinion so far.

I have another facet of the benefits puzzle to relate. I work for a major U.S. news coporation (HINT: It's headquartered in NYC and Daniel often posts articles from it) which has offered domestic partner benefits for a number of years. When marriage became legal in Massachusetts three years ago, the company made marriage the gold standard for its MA employees to claim those benefits. (I'm pretty sure it's doing the same where there are civil unions.)

That change of policy took some gay couples -- and a few straight couples who were living together and claiming domestic partnership -- by surprise. It was odd for me to learn that there are some committed gay couples who don't want to get married for whatever reason. Some don't want to ape hetero society. Some say it will spoil what they have. :confused:

I just traveled to Canada with my husband to visit our friends in Toronto. I learned from them that co-habiting couples of whatever gender are likely to be treated as legally married. Ontario has a common law marriage statute. My friends in Canada did not "get married" but are considered common-law married even before they emigrated to Canada. They simply had to prove certain facts regarding their relationship and "bingo" they were married! I learned also that they were told the same thing when their employer explained their pension benefits--common law spouses are automatically covered in pensions.

Consequently, most co-habiting gay couples refer to their "significant other" as "my husband" or "my spouse"--'cuz that's what they are! (Makes me wish I was born Canadian!)

I don't think many U.S. states have common law marriage statutes--some do, I guess. Massachusettes apparently does not.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

I read the article and agree with the majority opinion so far.

I have another facet of the benefits puzzle to relate. I work for a major U.S. news coporation (HINT: It's headquartered in NYC and Daniel often posts articles from it) which has offered domestic partner benefits for a number of years. When marriage became legal in Massachusetts three years ago, the company made marriage the gold standard for its MA employees to claim those benefits. (I'm pretty sure it's doing the same where there are civil unions.)

That change of policy took some gay couples -- and a few straight couples who were living together and claiming domestic partnership -- by surprise. It was odd for me to learn that there are some committed gay couples who don't want to get married for whatever reason. Some don't want to ape hetero society. Some say it will spoil what they have. :confused:



In this country(the US), married people have several advantages just because they are married. I want that, as a lesbian. I want the same damn thing because as an American citizen, it SHOULD be mine by virtue of that fact. On July 4th, we celebrate our freedom. Freedom for who? White, straight, male, Republicans? If you are glbt, a person of color, female, or anything but Republican, you are severely limited. I refuse to pledge allegiance to a country that openly and brazenly limits the freedom of some of its citizens. That is not freedom and nobody is free, until ALL are free.

Call me unpatriotic, or whatever. It is my personal civil disobedience. I will not pledge allegiance to a country that claims it is the bulwark of freedom, when in reality, it is a lie.:smashy::hissy::unhappy::disagree::mad:

[Daniel]

I read the article and agree with the majority opinion so far.

I have another facet of the benefits puzzle to relate. I work for a major U.S. news coporation (HINT: It's headquartered in NYC and Daniel often posts articles from it) which has offered domestic partner benefits for a number of years. When marriage became legal in Massachusetts three years ago, the company made marriage the gold standard for its MA employees to claim those benefits. (I'm pretty sure it's doing the same where there are civil unions.)

That change of policy took some gay couples -- and a few straight couples who were living together and claiming domestic partnership -- by surprise. It was odd for me to learn that there are some committed gay couples who don't want to get married for whatever reason. Some don't want to ape hetero society. Some say it will spoil what they have. :confused:

I have a lot of respect for your 'company', they went from '0' to '60' in a short amount of time as far as gay rights are concerned. There was a time when they didn't even use the word 'gay'. Seeing that the company is based in NYC, City policy may have also been a factor: NYC started recognizing legal marriage around the same time. Elliot Spitzer, who was Attorney General at the time (and is now Governor of NY), also wrote an opinion saying that the state should recognize gay marriage.

We have friends- a gay couple- who live in Toronto and they aren't in any hurry to get married. And yes- because of common law status- they are considered 'married'. From what they've told us, cohabitation isn't something one takes lightly in Canada. There are legal responsibilites that kick after a certain period of time.

[antonyh]

I went to the Civil Unions Lobby day for the Bill in Illinois. It is still winding it's way through the legislative process. I heard that they had to remove more of the "marriage" language and simplify the bill to get enough votes for it to pass. I guess the votes are not there or they would have introduced the bill.

Bill history:
http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1826&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30661&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95

So what do we do? Do we hold out for full marriage equality or do we take civil unions as a stepping stone to full marriage equality? Can civil unions actually provide the same benefits as marriage but be called civil unions?

This is just my opinion. If Civil Unions provided the same benefits and had the same weight as marriage, I would rather the State provide Civil Unions. Marriage is clearly a religious thing and should be done by the church.

I am very uncomfortable with pastors being able to sign marriage licenses for the State.

[pnggrad79]

I went to the Civil Unions Lobby day for the Bill in Illinois. It is still winding it's way through the legislative process. I heard that they had to remove more of the "marriage" language and simplify the bill to get enough votes for it to pass. I guess the votes are not there or they would have introduced the bill.

Bill history:
http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1826&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30661&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95

So what do we do? Do we hold out for full marriage equality or do we take civil unions as a stepping stone to full marriage equality? Can civil unions actually provide the same benefits as marriage but be called civil unions?

This is just my opinion. If Civil Unions provided the same benefits and had the same weight as marriage, I would rather the State provide Civil Unions. Marriage is clearly a religious thing and should be done by the church.

I am very uncomfortable with pastors being able to sign marriage licenses for the State.



I am with you Antony. If civil unions provided the same benefits for gays and lesbians, I would be for it. I have often said that if we got civil unions as a stepping stone, it would be better than nothing. I mean we have to be realistic here. It's coming, it is just a matter of when.:)

[tdogg]

I would rather have the right to visit my partner in the hospital dragging a piece of paper along with me, than not to have that right at all. In CA we have domestic partnerships (have to register with Sec of State), that provides some benefits and privileges of those granted with heterosexual marriage. I'm willing to take that now, but continue to fight for full equality. I don't really care what it's called, as long as it's the same across the board.

I agree, civil unions for the legal part, and if they want a 'marriage' they can have it in the church. So the legally joining (civil union) is a different process than the church (or non-church) ceremony (marriage)? Makes sense.