- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,659
- Reaction score
- 33,706
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]
Civil unions MAY have the same rights at the state level, in Wisconsin, and probably in other states that recognize civil unions. They won't have the same rights in states that don't recognize civil unions. However, states do generally recognize ALL marriages, even those that wouldn't be legal in that state (cousins, etc.). I could go into it, but the point is they just are not equivalent legal institutions, especially outside the state that granted the civil union.
And I really appreciate the sentiment (no sarcasm intended) about granting these couples equal rights, but marriage/married/spouse are just simplifying labels (besides the many legal ramifications). Are they married or single? Neither, so are they 'unioned?' All kinds of things divide between married and single, spouses or not. There is no real purpose in the distinction for equivalent legal relationships, in my view.
FWIW, I don't think it's all that important an issue - what we call it. But I've come to accept the position of gays - it's reserving a higher or special status for marriage between 'traditional' couples and denying it for SS couples. Or, more bluntly, maintaining same sex unions as second class. But, again, not a big deal. The big step, the 90% solution, is about rights. The vocal activists might spend a lot of time on that last 10%, but I can tell you my brother doesn't care, and his position, per him, isn't unusual at all. They'll refer to them as marriages, so will their friends and family, and if others call it something else - eh, whatever. His view in a nutshell.
My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?
I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only. Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history. If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.
Civil unions MAY have the same rights at the state level, in Wisconsin, and probably in other states that recognize civil unions. They won't have the same rights in states that don't recognize civil unions. However, states do generally recognize ALL marriages, even those that wouldn't be legal in that state (cousins, etc.). I could go into it, but the point is they just are not equivalent legal institutions, especially outside the state that granted the civil union.
And I really appreciate the sentiment (no sarcasm intended) about granting these couples equal rights, but marriage/married/spouse are just simplifying labels (besides the many legal ramifications). Are they married or single? Neither, so are they 'unioned?' All kinds of things divide between married and single, spouses or not. There is no real purpose in the distinction for equivalent legal relationships, in my view.
FWIW, I don't think it's all that important an issue - what we call it. But I've come to accept the position of gays - it's reserving a higher or special status for marriage between 'traditional' couples and denying it for SS couples. Or, more bluntly, maintaining same sex unions as second class. But, again, not a big deal. The big step, the 90% solution, is about rights. The vocal activists might spend a lot of time on that last 10%, but I can tell you my brother doesn't care, and his position, per him, isn't unusual at all. They'll refer to them as marriages, so will their friends and family, and if others call it something else - eh, whatever. His view in a nutshell.