Virginia bans homosexual civil unions

[Yorick]

That's a big list Jerr, but says little of meaning. They are allowed to:

1.Live together
2.Have sexual relations
3.Grow together in a committed life relationship.

That is the definition of marriage in my book, and the definition Jesus used. All you've posted is a meaningless list of beaurocratic processes. Those do not make a marriage.

Oh, and everyone has the right to change their name via deed poll. Your list is bogus in any case. Same with inheriting property. It's called a WILL. Without a will, even a "legal spouse" may not inherit all that was intended.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: That's a big list Jerr, but says little of meaning. They are allowed to: 1.Live together 2.Have sexual relations 3.Grow together in a committed life relationship. That is the definition of marriage in my book, and the definition Jesus used.

So? Not everyone plays by the same book. And not everyone cares about the definitions Jesus used. Sure, it's romantic to say that, but I know for a fact that the list Jerr cited is abridged... Is this equal treatment? No. Or perhaps you're suggesting that all marriages be reduced to those three points?
(Come to think of it, that idea is not without merit, but everyone is entitled to legal protections.)

[promethius9594]

http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-da...DF/pdf/182.pdf

well, since it has been called into question, there is the ACTUAL legal brief filed by the CRO with the supreme court. scroll down to page 34 (which is page 16 in the legal brief) and look at footnote 42. there you will read exactly what i posted.

Some notes: this is a legal brief. these professionally trained lawyers know more than almost any activist you can field. they arent allowed to put information they know to be false into the briefs, thus the data must be reliable.

also, this was filed by the CRO AGAINST the texas laws forbidding sodomy... thus it is from a pro gay source, so any claim that my sources are biased can be thrown out the window. in fact, i took one biased anti gay source, one non biased source, and one biased pro gay source and showed that all three appear to agree on this fact. that pretty much rounds out the proof if you ask me.

third, im not the prosecutor, im defending the facts... which makes me the defense. at any rate, i have provided my sources: where are yours to refute? and please dont quote kinsley (sp?) as his information was drastically misinturpreted

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, I note that the benefits inured to wedded couples contain financially-significant and respect-significant (sorry for the loose terminology -- it's late) benefits that are material to people of any sexuality.

Jerr, I haven't the time to provide a complete review of your list, but I do note that I would modify the language and consolidate a lot of the individual bullet-points. However, that would not refute the valid point you make.

What I'd really like to get at here, though, is the legalities. If all of the protections afforded (straight) married couples were provided to homosexual couples, would you be okay with calling it a "civil union" (or some other term) rather than calling it "marriage?"

I'm asking because the practical side of me focuses on the substantive benefits, not the nomenclature.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Donut: Interesting about your census being anonymous - ours isn't. Another small cultural difference that I was unaware of.

Something I just learned yesterday..the US census only remains anonymous for 70 years.

Just a fact I wanted to make to ensure nobody on this thread thought the census remains secret indefinately.

The crazy scientists say that the upcoming generation will live to be over 130 years old, and if a teenager were gay and wanted to remain private about that, then that teenager would spend the last 40 years of his life "out in the open".

[Khazadman Risen]

Earlier it was posted that if all the gays skipped the country that it would have little affect on the nation. I beg to differ. Hollywood and broadway would collapse. Which isn't to say that this exodus would be a bad thing.

[promethius9594]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Earlier it was posted that if all the gays skipped the country that it would have little affect on the nation. I beg to differ. Hollywood and broadway would collapse. Which isn't to say that this exodus would be a bad thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... thats classic. at the same time, i reject the idea that everything of culture and art is based on the work of homosexuals. hollywood and broadway would just have to look at hiring straight people to fill in for the missing half...

[Jerr Conner]

What I'd really like to get at here, though, is the legalities. If all of the protections afforded (straight) married couples were provided to homosexual couples, would you be okay with calling it a "civil union" (or some other term) rather than calling it "marriage?"

Sure. I'm fine with it being a Civil Union. Sure, I'd probably still say I'm married, but I'm ok as long as I have the same rights andd benefits.

That's a big list Jerr, but says little of meaning. They are allowed to: 1.Live together 2.Have sexual relations 3.Grow together in a committed life relationship. That is the definition of marriage in my book, and the definition Jesus used. All you've posted is a meaningless list of beaurocratic processes. Those do not make a marriage. Oh, and everyone has the right to change their name via deed poll. Your list is bogus in any case. Same with inheriting property. It's called a WILL. Without a will, even a "legal spouse" may not inherit all that was intended.

Like Illumina pointed out, it's not bogus.

Like I pointed out, I cited the list from another site. There is an even bigger list (With over a 1000 benefits listed) but I couldn't find it.

As Timber pointed out, "Yorick, I note that the benefits inured to wedded couples contain financially-significant and respect-significant (sorry for the loose terminology -- it's late) benefits that are material to people of any sexuality."

And these following benefits don't matter?:

Consent to post-mortem examination
Criminal injuries compensation
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation

And I'm sure a few others on that list can't be easily solved as well.

[Timber Loftis]

On Jerr's last note, I want to point out that 2 lesbians recently wed in Mass. left the marriage ceremony and went straight to the courthouse to file a lawsuit based on loss of consortium claims.

Which is just a farce -- you have to be married at the time of the event. But, I guess they're trying to change the law. Unlikely shot in the dark, but we'll see.

As for the snide quote about gays and Hollywood, I'll be equally snide and point out that if all the gays left, we'd at least still have the Jewish folk there to finance, direct and produce the pictures.

[Jerr Conner]

Well if all of us gays did leave the country and formed our own, I'd certainly have a much easier time finding a date!