What can you add without changing the meaning and context? (Chick-Fil-A)
Thank goodness I have not said anything remotely similar to that. Well the screw history part yes, I couldn't care less whether history thinks marriages are between people of the same race, i still think that is wrong. But the make stuff up part, not at all. I have identified a component of marriage that IS widely considered and talked about from people on a wide portion of the spectrum. Not every historical example, of course, but today most religious people ALSO think marriage is about love and commitment. Now they may additionally think it is between a man and a woman and that is fine, they can think whatever religious voodoo they want, but I make the common identification because it helps bridge the gap.
As it happens, the relevant factors in marriage are love for each other and a willingness to dedicate to oneself, something that is entirely separate from considerations of skin colour or sexual orientation.
It is incrediably common for people of all backgrounds to recognize marriage in the terms I described as love and commitment and the like. The only time when it is NOT described in those terms, that I am aware of, is when people try to apologize for their discrimination against homosexuals then it becomes just this thing between a man and a wife.
I am just saying that my description of it being something about love and commitment and the like IS commonly accepted by others....they just want to tack on the discrimination whenever the issue comes up.
As for history, I couldn't care less if my person view of marriage as I think of it with my wife is or is not supported by history. I am surely aware that discrimination is widespread in history I am not trying to deny that reality.
Thank goodness I have not said anything remotely similar to that. Well the screw history part yes, I couldn't care less whether history thinks marriages are between people of the same race, i still think that is wrong.
We both already agree that the harmful discrimination is wrong. We both agree it is a problem. We have both proposed solutions to this problem. Both of those solutions end discrimination and have an egalitarian solution. There is little need to go back and justify any of the agreed on subjects in the same way there is no point in getting into a discussion of why I think slavery is wrong since we both agree it is.
What we disagree on is this little word trick you want to tack on to the legal expansion to include gays. Okay sure, I have given my arguements for this is stupid but what really gets me is your unwillingness to end the discrimination you agree is wrong NOW, if the opportunity comes up, by my solution which is the same as yours minus the word trick.
Of course let us be honest here and acknowledge that you have yet to offer in this thread a single justification for your views outside of a very flippant tactical argument that is almost immediately defeated when one considers the history of successes of marriage equality arround the world and in the US. You have hinted and insinuated that there are some unknown long term consequences, some speculation of future problems, perhaps even some religious freedoms being violated....but that just became some people thinking that who are not you. But have you actually given a single justification for your view that holds even a modicum of water?
What we disagree on is this little word trick you want to tack on to the legal expansion to include gays. Okay sure, I have given my arguements for this is stupid but what really gets me is your unwillingness to end the discrimination you agree is wrong NOW, if the opportunity comes up, by my solution which is the same as yours minus the word trick.
Of course let us be honest here and acknowledge that you have yet to offer in this thread a single justification for your views outside of a very flippant tactical argument that is almost immediately defeated when one considers the history of successes of marriage equality arround the world and in the US. You have hinted and insinuated that there are some unknown long term consequences, some speculation of future problems, perhaps even some religious freedoms being violated....but that just became some people thinking that who are not you. But have you actually given a single justification for your view that holds even a modicum of water?
As for this bit about history, let me ask you directly since (amazingly) you have to confirm or deny this. Do you think that my contention - that love and commitment are widely considered an integral component of marriage accross a diverse range of people both religious and not - is true? Perhaps they add the man and woman bit, but surely this contention is indeed true?
I went back and read some of your response specifically addressing history and my best guess based on your responses (none of which make an arguement themselves, just assert things about me) is that you are massively misconstruing my intentions. What, exactly, is your point?
I went back and read some of your response specifically addressing history and my best guess based on your responses (none of which make an arguement themselves, just assert things about me) is that you are massively misconstruing my intentions. What, exactly, is your point?
What amuses me most is the flippant comments about "it only about the title marriage". Yet YOU are the one who is taking this title to such extremes that you want to entirely remove the title from any form of government before you could possible consent to making the legal status the same! It is YOU who is overvaluing this title enormously. And then you act diminutive of those who think gays getting the full title is important. Please.
This is true. It *IS* about same sex marriages. It is *NOT* primarily about civil unions. Those got swept into the mix because individual states did not want decisions in other states pushing them around. (Basically, this is an example of why just pushing things through is the more difficult route to take, and a demonstration that you will get a big blowback.)
Right. And once you give a right, it's even harder to take it away. Even more reason to take the route of less confrontation.
Right. And once you give a right, it's even harder to take it away. Even more reason to take the route of less confrontation.
And as far as taking the road of least confrontation, sometimes confrontation is necessary. When the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriages, the majority of the population supported those laws and well over 50% of the states had laws on the books that prohibited interracial marriages. That was about 50 years ago, and now hardly anyone would support a return of those laws. Individual people might still think that members of a race should only marry other members of that race, but there is no significant organized movement that opposes governmental recognition of interracial marriage.
That acceptance didn't happen because interracial couples sat back and politely asked opponents to give them something that was kinda like marriage... They went to the courts, the courts ruled that they had a fundamental right to marry, they exercised that right, and society realized that was no big deal. And that's exactly what would happen with same sex marriage if we can just go ahead and get it recognized.
And, I am sure, exactly what will happen in the not so long term.
"marriage" is a generic trademark of a sort. No one calls what they have "a civil union" or "we've been civil unionized", everyone calls it marriage, civil or not, gay or not. Trying to separate them, post hoc, is likely to fail.
Reread the Texas statute. The statute specifically refers to civil unions as well as marriages... So it's not just about not wanting to apply the term marriage to legally recognized same sex relationships, it is about making sure that no legal recognition is given to same sex relationships.
And if you don't agree with that, I don't think that you've been following the debates on these topics very closely.
And as far as taking the road of least confrontation, sometimes confrontation is necessary. When the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriages, the majority of the population supported those laws and well over 50% of the states had laws on the books that prohibited interracial marriages. That was about 50 years ago, and now hardly anyone would support a return of those laws. Individual people might still think that members of a race should only marry other members of that race, but there is no significant organized movement that opposes governmental recognition of interracial marriage.
They went to the courts, the courts ruled that they had a fundamental right to marry, they exercised that right, and society realized that was no big deal. And that's exactly what would happen with same sex marriage if we can just go ahead and get it recognized.
PEOPLE will still call it marriage. But that's fine. It's about GOVERNMENT changing its language.
What amuses me most is the flippant comments about "it only about the title marriage". Yet YOU are the one who is taking this title to such extremes that you want to entirely remove the title from any form of government before you could possible consent to making the legal status the same! It is YOU who is overvaluing this title enormously. And then you act diminutive of those who think gays getting the full title is important. Please.
I thought you wanted the government out of marriage or civil unions or whatever. Let the people define through contract their relationships with others and call it as they will. Generally I think the word marriage has been secularized and to separate 'civil unions' from the 'marriages' is a distinction without a difference, but I can see the benefit from removing perceived religious language from the secular government even if the people doing the perceiving are the religious.
Oppose any legal recognition for same sex couples 29.2%
Support civil unions or partnerships for same sex couples, but not full rights 29.1%
Full marriage rights for same sex couples 37.5%
% "at civil union or more" 66.6%
Another poll (Sep 2011):
State legislators are trying to pass a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for LGBT couples. If the election was held today, how would you vote for this amendment? Their Opinion
Would vote for it 30%
Would vote against it 55%
I don't understand what these numbers really mean. Because...
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.05% to 38.95%
Anyway, what if religious marriage was officially renamed "Holy Matrimony"?
(I'm not joking, it's a serious question)
@Aaron:
Why do non-religious institutions have to forfeit the word "marriage"?
I understand that you want each religion to have the right to define which types of unions they sanctions and which they don't. I think I might agree with this although it irks me that they get a license to discriminate(*). Do religious institutions have more of a right to use the term? If yes, why?
Edit: OTOH if you don't like it, choose a different religion/denomination.
Why do non-religious institutions have to forfeit the word "marriage"?
I understand that you want each religion to have the right to define which types of unions they sanctions and which they don't. I think I might agree with this although it irks me that they get a license to discriminate(*). Do religious institutions have more of a right to use the term? If yes, why?
Edit: OTOH if you don't like it, choose a different religion/denomination.
Another poll (Sep 2011):
State legislators are trying to pass a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for LGBT couples. If the election was held today, how would you vote for this amendment? Their Opinion
Would vote for it 30%
Would vote against it 55%
I don't understand what these numbers really mean. Because...
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.05% to 38.95%
State legislators are trying to pass a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for LGBT couples. If the election was held today, how would you vote for this amendment? Their Opinion
Would vote for it 30%
Would vote against it 55%
I don't understand what these numbers really mean. Because...
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.05% to 38.95%
Uhm...inheritance rights - largely dependent on the parents of gay persons will? (since we're not going by mandated torah law) Like the parents can acknowledge that relationship if they want to or not (even sonship and str8 edge can be cut out, and the unrelated put in), unlike bible where inheritance is automatic and non negotiable.
kids - non applicable (sure, hairy issue of adoption)
hospital visitation - hmm, just a few more hours?
See guys, nothing to gain here.
Ah, what they really want is social acceptance, and this will fully legitimize it in their view.
Look at all this nothing:
the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
from here
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
from here
Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage
By MyFamilyLaw Admin | Published: September 7, 2009
What Else You Get By Saying “I Do”
Although to some marriage is nothing more than a “piece of paper,” the formal ceremony does afford some rights and benefits you can’t get otherwise.
In general, society treats the spouse as the most privileged party, more so even than mom, dad or the kids. This is an important factor when it comes to making medical decisions or receiving public assistance benefits on behalf of your spouse, or rights that would otherwise require a power of attorney or similar legal document.
Social Security, disability and medicare benefits can all be paid to a spouse as can veteran and military benefits. Those with insurance plans through an employer can normally add a spouse to the plan, a benefit that is not offered to unmarried couples. Most employers also extend bereavement leave to close relatives of your spouse and allow family leave to care for your spouse in the event they become ill or disabled.
Marriage also gives you the right to sue on behalf of your spouse and gives you visiting rights if your spouse is in jail or the intensive care unit at a hospital. You cannot be called to testify against your spouse as most states have laws protecting your conversations as privileged.
If you do divorce, you are automatically entitled to a share in the community property, barring of course, any prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. Even in the event that there is a “prenup” or “postnup” in place, most states still treat alimony (also called spousal support) as a separate issue – meaning it can’t be waived in a prenup.
The spouse has the right to make funeral and burial arrangements, consent to any after-death procedures and grant or refuse any bestowments to friends and family members, assuming they do not conflict with a legal will.
A married couple can also file tax returns jointly and are given the ability to create family partnerships to address business income. In addition, self-employed individuals can extend investing opportunities to their spouse through an individual 401(k), a benefit not afforded to unmarried couples or registered domestic partnerships.
By MyFamilyLaw Admin | Published: September 7, 2009
What Else You Get By Saying “I Do”
Although to some marriage is nothing more than a “piece of paper,” the formal ceremony does afford some rights and benefits you can’t get otherwise.
In general, society treats the spouse as the most privileged party, more so even than mom, dad or the kids. This is an important factor when it comes to making medical decisions or receiving public assistance benefits on behalf of your spouse, or rights that would otherwise require a power of attorney or similar legal document.
Social Security, disability and medicare benefits can all be paid to a spouse as can veteran and military benefits. Those with insurance plans through an employer can normally add a spouse to the plan, a benefit that is not offered to unmarried couples. Most employers also extend bereavement leave to close relatives of your spouse and allow family leave to care for your spouse in the event they become ill or disabled.
Marriage also gives you the right to sue on behalf of your spouse and gives you visiting rights if your spouse is in jail or the intensive care unit at a hospital. You cannot be called to testify against your spouse as most states have laws protecting your conversations as privileged.
If you do divorce, you are automatically entitled to a share in the community property, barring of course, any prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. Even in the event that there is a “prenup” or “postnup” in place, most states still treat alimony (also called spousal support) as a separate issue – meaning it can’t be waived in a prenup.
The spouse has the right to make funeral and burial arrangements, consent to any after-death procedures and grant or refuse any bestowments to friends and family members, assuming they do not conflict with a legal will.
A married couple can also file tax returns jointly and are given the ability to create family partnerships to address business income. In addition, self-employed individuals can extend investing opportunities to their spouse through an individual 401(k), a benefit not afforded to unmarried couples or registered domestic partnerships.
Rights and benefitsRight to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
Medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
Medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
I should clarify this point a bit because your objection is correct as I've stated things.
Under my proposal, "marriage" refers to a purely social contract. Atheists can certainly be "married" by any organization (religious or secular) that is willing to marry them. But what the separation of naming accomplishes is that it allows for religious institutions to take the meaning of the agreement to be whatever they want it to be without creating confusion with the legal terminology or without feeling imposed upon by the government. Specifically, it makes the concept of "marriage" as something disjoint from anything that may be legally binding, which is where the interplay of religious freedoms and government may come into play.
Imagine a clean slate of the word marriage in both government and society. Government creates a two-person legal document that endows both parties with certain rights. That's the civil union. Now within society, different groups can hold whatever ceremonies they want with the full knowledge that their ceremony has no particular legal bearing, basically as Bar Mitzvahs, baptisms, and Temple marriages are practiced today.
What's going on now is kind of like if middle school graduations were called Bar Mitzvahs. Yes, Jewish synagogues could have *their* Bar Mitazvahs, and the government could have its Bar Mitzvahs, but it's really just asking for confusion and trouble.
Under my proposal, "marriage" refers to a purely social contract. Atheists can certainly be "married" by any organization (religious or secular) that is willing to marry them. But what the separation of naming accomplishes is that it allows for religious institutions to take the meaning of the agreement to be whatever they want it to be without creating confusion with the legal terminology or without feeling imposed upon by the government. Specifically, it makes the concept of "marriage" as something disjoint from anything that may be legally binding, which is where the interplay of religious freedoms and government may come into play.
Imagine a clean slate of the word marriage in both government and society. Government creates a two-person legal document that endows both parties with certain rights. That's the civil union. Now within society, different groups can hold whatever ceremonies they want with the full knowledge that their ceremony has no particular legal bearing, basically as Bar Mitzvahs, baptisms, and Temple marriages are practiced today.
What's going on now is kind of like if middle school graduations were called Bar Mitzvahs. Yes, Jewish synagogues could have *their* Bar Mitazvahs, and the government could have its Bar Mitzvahs, but it's really just asking for confusion and trouble.
I did some quick googling to see if there was ever polling done on Aaron's proposal but I couldn't find anything. Anybody else have anything?
Personally, I have enormous trouble believing that all those who right now refuse to accept the idea of a civil union for gays in conjunction with full legal marriage for themselves are going to be at all accepting of removing their long held cherished title and giving identical rights to both. If they can't even accept the separate but equal status, how are they going to accept the entirely equal status with them stripped of their title to boot? Given the strength of the latent homophobia that is preventing even civil unions from occurring, this idea just seems tactically to be incredibly naive.
Btw, the fact that my brief google didn't really turn up anything demonstrates just how far this idea is from being on the table, unlike expanding the legal definition which is very prevalent and one can find tonnes of information on and will be on various ballots in the next election.
Personally, I have enormous trouble believing that all those who right now refuse to accept the idea of a civil union for gays in conjunction with full legal marriage for themselves are going to be at all accepting of removing their long held cherished title and giving identical rights to both. If they can't even accept the separate but equal status, how are they going to accept the entirely equal status with them stripped of their title to boot? Given the strength of the latent homophobia that is preventing even civil unions from occurring, this idea just seems tactically to be incredibly naive.
Btw, the fact that my brief google didn't really turn up anything demonstrates just how far this idea is from being on the table, unlike expanding the legal definition which is very prevalent and one can find tonnes of information on and will be on various ballots in the next election.
Ya it is literally identical except it has the word switch. Ironically, when asked if he would vote for the proposition without the word switch it suddenly became impossible for him to accept.
He's not denying it's essentially a trick. (I think)
Though he would if he were a professional politician, maybe...
Though he would if he were a professional politician, maybe...
@Aaron:
Why do non-religious institutions have to forfeit the word "marriage"?
I understand that you want each religion to have the right to define which types of unions they sanctions and which they don't. I think I might agree with this although it irks me that they get a license to discriminate(*). Do religious institutions have more of a right to use the term? If yes, why?
Edit: OTOH if you don't like it, choose a different religion/denomination.
Why do non-religious institutions have to forfeit the word "marriage"?
I understand that you want each religion to have the right to define which types of unions they sanctions and which they don't. I think I might agree with this although it irks me that they get a license to discriminate(*). Do religious institutions have more of a right to use the term? If yes, why?
Edit: OTOH if you don't like it, choose a different religion/denomination.
It's not that religious institutions have "more" of a right to use the term, it's just that fighting for/over that word is not helpful for advancing the legal rights issue (which is the actual issue).
I don't have the same anti-discrimination-at-all-levels position as most other people have. Private groups should have a lot of freedom to make decisions regarding whatever internal ceremonies they want. This move takes the marriage ceremony (and title) and makes it a private matter, just like baptisms and Bar Mitzvahs. Religious groups have a little ceremony, and it's meaningful and significant to the in-group, and the out-group can smile at it (either in mutual celebration or in condescension). And those religious groups can make whatever religious position they want around who can and can't participate in their ceremony. And it makes no difference because there is a clear distinction that this is a legally irrelevant ceremony.
I will grant that for some people, this is more than a legal rights issue. Some people (like Uke) wants to make this about a blanket social acceptance, that somehow forcing others to accept "gay marriage" sends a signal or whatever. That is, legal rights are "not enough." I respect that position, but I would also say that it's not my position, and it's not one that I would care to fight for.
In strategy, no. I'm taking steps to avoid hangups over religious matters.
I did some quick googling to see if there was ever polling done on Aaron's proposal but I couldn't find anything. Anybody else have anything?
Personally, I have enormous trouble believing that all those who right now refuse to accept the idea of a civil union for gays in conjunction with full legal marriage for themselves are going to be at all accepting of removing their long held cherished title and giving identical rights to both. If they can't even accept the separate but equal status, how are they going to accept the entirely equal status with them stripped of their title to boot? Given the strength of the latent homophobia that is preventing even civil unions from occurring, this idea just seems tactically to be incredibly naive.
Personally, I have enormous trouble believing that all those who right now refuse to accept the idea of a civil union for gays in conjunction with full legal marriage for themselves are going to be at all accepting of removing their long held cherished title and giving identical rights to both. If they can't even accept the separate but equal status, how are they going to accept the entirely equal status with them stripped of their title to boot? Given the strength of the latent homophobia that is preventing even civil unions from occurring, this idea just seems tactically to be incredibly naive.
By removing the religious aspects from the conversation, you remove the curtain of religion to expose the actual homophobia. You will force people to say outright "I am against gays having the right to <whatever>" and they need to ground their belief in something other than religion.
Btw, the fact that my brief google didn't really turn up anything demonstrates just how far this idea is from being on the table, unlike expanding the legal definition which is very prevalent and one can find tonnes of information on and will be on various ballots in the next election.
My argument is that this approach avoids the religious aspects completely because the primary bloc that is causing problems are those who have religious issues with the idea.
Also, 8 months is a very, very long time in terms of politics, and there are many conflating factors (what else is on the ballot?).
I believe they don't want to give gays anything because of their hatred and fear of them. I always marvel at their focus on gays. Within their own ranks they can find 50% of the them getting divorced.... more people have affairs in their marriages then there are gay people wanting to get married. Gays are singled out for a special kind of attention.
And keep in mind, Aaron, many of the people don't think its about legal rights. As payandspray posted earlier, a common sentiment is that the gays aren't really interested in rights, they're looking for legitimization. Something they actively oppose. They aren't interested in them treated equally because they don't believe they are equal nor should they be.
We already know the solution your proposing won't be accepted by these people as they're actively trying to pass legislation making your compromise illegal.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE