Thread: Winning SSM battles before the war

Originally Posted by jambalaya

If it is only 3% why is it a big deal either way? So 3% refuse to accept civil unions in lieu of marriage. Why should we care?

They're not being offered civil unions at all, so why do you pretend that is an option? At this time, there is a better chance of getting same sex marriage legalized across the country than there is of getting civil unions and complete recognition for those unions that is equal to marriage in every way in every state and by the federal government.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

They're not being offered civil unions at all, so why do you pretend that is an option? At this time, there is a better chance of getting same sex marriage legalized across the country than there is of getting civil unions and complete recognition for those unions that is equal to marriage in every way in every state and by the federal government.

So there are no states currently offering civil unions? In this Wikipedia article there are quite a few listed: Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe some of them have changed. But at least it doesn't seem quite as difficult as you make it out to be. In fact I would be willing to bet that of the people who oppose SSM there would be some who would have no problem with civil unions making the passage of same easier. I think it reasonable that abandoning the civil union argument in favor of the all or nothing argument has delayed things more.

Originally Posted by jambalaya

So there are no states currently offering civil unions? In this Wikipedia article there are quite a few listed: Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe some of them have changed. But at least it doesn't seem quite as difficult as you make it out to be. In fact I would be willing to bet that of the people who oppose SSM there would be some who would have no problem with civil unions making the passage of same easier. I think there is probably more evidence that abandoning the civil union argument in favor of the all or nothing argument has delayed things more.

Do they provide the exact same rights and benefits of marriage? Plus, since most states with laws/amendments against marriage also include bans against anything like marriage, then no they really are not being provided in any way that is like marriage.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Do they provide the exact same rights and benefits of marriage? Plus, since most states with laws/amendments against marriage also include bans against anything like marriage, then no they really are not being provided in any way that is like marriage.

In what ways are they not like marriage? The states that previously did not have civil unions had to change their laws that previously had bans against anything like gay marriage so there would be no reason that any other state couldn't do the same. I mean they have to change or clarify their laws anyway. You are demonstrating beautifully the premise of the OP.

Originally Posted by jambalaya

In what ways are they not like marriage? The states that previously did not have civil unions had to change their laws that previously had bans against anything like gay marriage so there would be no reason that any other state couldn't do the same. I mean they have to change or clarify their laws anyway. You are demonstrating beautifully the premise of the OP.

Are they recognized by every state? Do they provide legal standing against family challenges? Are they covered under the Family Leave Act? Are they given SS benefits? Are they given a right to joint adoption in the same manner that married people would be? If there are any differences, then they are not the same.

The only thing that would have to change, legally, in any marriage laws if same sex couples were allowed to marry would be a reference to sex or a clarification in a reference to sex.

Originally Posted by jambalaya

So there are no states currently offering civil unions? In this Wikipedia article there are quite a few listed: Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe some of them have changed. But at least it doesn't seem quite as difficult as you make it out to be. In fact I would be willing to bet that of the people who oppose SSM there would be some who would have no problem with civil unions making the passage of same easier. I think it reasonable that abandoning the civil union argument in favor of the all or nothing argument has delayed things more.

The problem I see with pushing for civil unions as a sort of foot in the door towards marriage is that it can make marriage equality more difficult. For instance, if a state votes to amend their constitution to ban same sex marriage, that is going to be VERY hard to change in the future. So, even though people in that state might be able to have civil unions and you can see that as a sort of half-way point, it may make obtaining marriage equality a much more difficult legal task in the future. Whereas if we fight those kinds of changes NOW, we can maybe make the situation a little bit less desperate.

And then you have to consider states like North Carolina. They already HAD a ban on same sex marriage on the books. Same sex marriage was not at all legal in NC, but they used people's prejudice and ignorance to convince them to vote for Amendment 1, which bans civil unions. So it can work both ways. It's so idiotic. If you look at polls and interviews from NC regarding Amendment 1, the main reason I keep seeing for people voting for it was to "protect marriage", even though it was banning civil unions and marriage was already "protected" there.

The problem is really that going for civil unions and then marriage is not a two steps forward, one step back kind of situation. It's more of a one step forward, two steps back situation. And that is really going to get us nowhere.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

So with that statement what are you fighting for? Are you leaving it at SSM only or are you going for the full equality of ANY consenting adults being able to get married AND any number of consenting adults forming a single legal unit through group marriage? That question is not just to J, but to all who are holding the same view.

Well I stay on topic LMAO this thread is about SSM your other questions are in fact separate issues and irrelevant.

BUT

if you are asking for my opinion I have no problem with polygamy but that's a different battle, the only road block for polygamy is figuring out the vast legality of it, if someone dies what happens, kids, property etc. Im totally in support of polygamy as long as it follows the same rules, consenting human adults

but again back on topic none of that mattes to the fact the gays want are fighting for equality because anything else is NOT equality. Gay marriage and straight marriage need no legal changes besides changed the words that point to gender. They already match.

Why would be people settle for less than equality in 2012 when theres no promise the fight would get easier and in fact it could get harder.

Originally Posted by Objective-J

Well I stay on topic LMAO this thread is about SSM your other questions are in fact separate issues and irrelevant.

BUT

if you are asking for my opinion I have no problem with polygamy but that's a different battle, the only road block for polygamy is figuring out the vast legality of it, if someone dies what happens, kids, property etc. Im totally in support of polygamy as long as it follows the same rules, consenting human adults

but again back on topic none of that mattes to the fact the gays want are fighting for equality because anything else is NOT equality. Gay marriage and straight marriage need no legal changes besides changed the words that point to gender. They already match.

Why would be people settle for less than equality in 2012 when theres no promise the fight would get easier and in fact it could get harder.

I can grant your point towards poly, but as towards marriage between any two consenting adults(which you failed to address)...well marriage equality is marriage equality. Either you are for even siblings or parent/offspring legal marriages or you are not truly for marriage equality. And for the record, I was not the first to bring up marriage equality. Indeed I started with just SSM. Marriage equality is marriage equality, just as racial equality is racial equality and gender equality is gender equality.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

But there have been and currently are many lawmakers willing to give full marriage to same sex couples. So why should they push for civil unions if they can get marriages in basically the same amount of time?

Legal same sex marriage will be a reality across the country in my lifetime. I have very little doubt of that. Likely it will be in the next 5 to 10 years, if not sooner. So why go back now in this fight and ask for civil unions when that really would just set back the goal?

First SSM is already a reality in some states, but yes I agree that most likely we'll see all 50 states legal, with probably federal laws as well.

But I think you have just exposed a source of misunderstanding on what I am saying.

Just because there are many lawmakers willing to give full marriage to same sex couples, the question that still remains is are there enough lawmakers willing in any given state to get it to pass? If not BUT there are enough who are willing to pass civil unions, why would you not take civil unions now when you can get it but not marriage, and then work to get in the legislators who will finish the job? If I ever gave the impression that I wanted to move back progress in states where progress has moved past the civil unions and are teetering on marriage, then I apologize. I am mainly focused on where full progress might not be for several years but partial progress can happen now.

Originally Posted by Dustmop

The problem I see with pushing for civil unions as a sort of foot in the door towards marriage is that it can make marriage equality more difficult. For instance, if a state votes to amend their constitution to ban same sex marriage, that is going to be VERY hard to change in the future. So, even though people in that state might be able to have civil unions and you can see that as a sort of half-way point, it may make obtaining marriage equality a much more difficult legal task in the future. Whereas if we fight those kinds of changes NOW, we can maybe make the situation a little bit less desperate.

I would put forth that there is a very real difference between fighting for SSM and fighting against a ban on SSM, especially as a state constitutional amendment. I would much rather have a lack of SSM by legal interpretation than by explicit law.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

First SSM is already a reality in some states, but yes I agree that most likely we'll see all 50 states legal, with probably federal laws as well.

But I think you have just exposed a source of misunderstanding on what I am saying.

Just because there are many lawmakers willing to give full marriage to same sex couples, the question that still remains is are there enough lawmakers willing in any given state to get it to pass? If not BUT there are enough who are willing to pass civil unions, why would you not take civil unions now when you can get it but not marriage, and then work to get in the legislators who will finish the job? If I ever gave the impression that I wanted to move back progress in states where progress has moved past the civil unions and are teetering on marriage, then I apologize. I am mainly focused on where full progress might not be for several years but partial progress can happen now.

I don't believe there are enough in many states that have laws against same sex marriage to get same sex civil unions to pass. So pushing for same sex civil unions in those where it might pass would be a step back because it would be harder to argue that they aren't getting any protections from those states and that's why DOMA would need to go away.

Plus, once same sex marriages are legalized in all states, those in same sex civil unions would likely not have those civil unions just changed to a marriage. They would likely have to still get that marriage license as well.

If it is offered freely, then sure, those couples who wish to take it should take advantage of it. But it should not be pushed by those fighting for same sex marriage because it produces another obstacle to go through when trying to get full marriage everywhere instead of a step up.