The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes
Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used
The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples
Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.
Not disputing the above comments,
but look at what this site says (credentials? I don't know if this is true)
"On 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."
source: Legal and economic benefits of marriage
That is a big difference. No wonder why they are fighting for it, yeah?
My English is not always perfect, so please, try not to go nuts as I lack infallible grammar and spelling.
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the group that won the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2003, has filed suit in federal district court on behalf of eight couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal benefits such as Social Security spousal payments and the right to file joint tax returns with the IRS.
GLAD is only going after the section of DOMA that denies federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages, arguing that the federal government recognizes all other marriages licensed by the states even though the laws governing which different-sex couples can marry varies widely from state to state. The group noted that the federal government does not itself license any marriages, "only states do."
GayCityNews - Major Challenge to DOMA From Massachusetts
"The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. - Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.
Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
Last edited by Black Dog; 03-09-09 at 02:50 PM.
No Lives Matter
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,
call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.
Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.
I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.
For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?
According to the Constitution:
"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.
"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".
Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.
Please explain how I am a "bigot" by pointing out the law as it stands?
Last edited by Black Dog; 03-09-09 at 03:04 PM.
No Lives Matter
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang