Virginia bans homosexual civil unions

[promethius9594]

well, chewbacca, now you've entered into the realm of INTENT. a realm which is IRRELEVENT in the courtroom. in fact, its very similar to the supreme court case RE burning flags in protest. they ruled that intent was irrelevant and that legality lay in the action, thus one action in one intent could not be illegal simply because the intent was changed. namely, because they love each other has no regard to the equality of the action whatsoever. its what you call... poppycock.

[Timber Loftis]

But - as Timber pointed out several months ago in a similar thread - MOST of the legal benefits CAN be attained by gay couples. It requires a lot of paperwork and the cost is fairly high ($5,000 - $10,000 IIRC), but it can be done.

Actually, the cost I think I quoted is upwards of $20K, and any of these costs is unfair to thrust on a couple just because of their gender. Let me be clear: while I think that calling it "marriage" is only a minor "to-may-to, to-mah-to" issue, I do believe that insuring the rights of coupling inure to a gay couple is important. IMO, every state *should* have a "civil union" for these couples, to allow them the same substantive benefits.

Additionally, I think the law as first proposed by Mass works best -- call it a "civil union" and pass a law stating that all mentioning of "marriage" in the law must also apply to "civil unions" -- making them substantively equal, while preserving the nomenclature difference.

And the plain fact is that "Gay Marriages" or "Civil Unions" won't do diddley-squat to change the items on that list that can't be attained through the proper legal paperwork. Since gay marriages or civil unions are NOT being universally recognized in all 50 states, there isn't much that can be done to FORCE an employer to acknowledge the union and offer health insurance to a same-sex partner/spouse. The same applies to any other item on that list. If a lawyer cannot draw up paperwork to obtain those benefits, having your relationship officially sanctioned by one or two states isn't going to help either.

Actually, this is wrong, as well. For instance, the employer in VT, no matter their state of origin, must follow the VT law and make sure the rights in question (such as shared medical insurance) also go to the "civil union" couples. The state does control that. The same is now true in Mass.

As for the states refusing to recognize the marriages/unions, that is still an issue. However, that too is changing -- NY will recognize the MA marriages for instance.

I realize there are heartbreaking examples of gay couples being denied basic rights most of us take for granted...the lesbian partner who was not allowed to be in the room with her dying partner, the gay couple that manage to adopt a child (or procreate through a surrogate), only to lose custody of the child when one of the partners die.

Yes, As I mentioned before, these are issues that even some staunch conservatives can see as being very wrong from a "humanity/compassion" standpoint.

The problem is that having the State gov't declare the union "legal" isn't going to change the bias of the nurse that refused to let the partner into the room of her dying lover. And while the State may considered the union between the two "legal", the custody of the child could still be contested since a "legal union" still may not be considered equivalent to "next of kin".

Actually, in the states protecting such unions, this is also wrong as well. In VT, a nurse who is biased against gays, will nevertheless grant the access to the "death bed" that a next-of-kin gets (as required by law), because that nurse knows that the way the law is now, he/she can be subject to JAIL TIME for refusing those rights. Additionally, refusing those rights could get the hospital *sued,* which result in the nurse at least losing their job -- even more incentive to do the right thing under the law.

Just some thoughts and clarifications. Not meaning to slam you about, Cerek. I think you listened to the concerns rather thoughtfully, I just think you misunderstand and misunderestimate (to use a Bushism) the ability of the law to change things.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by promethius9594: chewbacca, a gay man has the very same right to marry as a straight man does. if a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. if a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. no inequality. if a gay man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. if a straight man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. no inequality. i hate it when people try to gain pity points for the movement by arguing for "equality" when legalistically its already there. we're not talking about equal rights, we're talking about an expansion of rights to include a new factor... even applied society wide it is STILL an expansion of rights, not correcting an "inequality." so please, cut the BS about unfair or unequal because that arguement just doesnt float.

Ah one of my favorite run-arounds of the issue...the ole- a gay man can marry a woman so the gays already have rights. Its poppycock.

A gay man can't marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way.... ie. -another man.

A hetrosexual man can marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way- ie. a woman.

So it is unfair and it is unequal..and it certainly floats. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I generally agree with Whatawookie, so long as I restate the caveat that the substantive rights are important, not the nomenclature, so a "civil union" works as well as a "marriage."

Here, Promethius, let me put your argument to its logical conclusions:

"If a gay man wants to have sex with a woman, he can. But, gay men cannot have sex with each other."

That is your premise stated with "sex" instead of "marriage" -- and the Supreme Court has expressly denied that and upheld the right to gay sex, based on the Right of Privacy. Your argument is simply logically flawed as to what the law can do.

Here's another parallel:

"If a white man who likes black women wants to marry a white woman, he can. But white men cannot marry black women."

Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I generally agree with Whatawookie, so long as I restate the caveat that the substantive rights are important, not the nomenclature, so a "civil union" works as well as a "marriage."

I'm closer to being on-board with this line of thinking now than before- so long as civil unions get the exact same substantive legal rights and priviledges, at every level, as marriage.

I *think* we are a long ways off from this at a federal level unless a potential future court ruling finds the DOMA unconstitutional. Right?

I just got married a month ago and I am still learning all the new stuff involved legally. Like I was able to give my wife a car when hers went kaput, and she paid no taxes on it. As merely my longtime live-together girlfriend she would have shelled out around $500 (that's why they call it Taxxachusetts!) A real set of lessons will come, I think, next year at tax time.

[Gnarf]

Originally posted by promethius9594: chewbacca, a gay man has the very same right to marry as a straight man does. if a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. if a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. no inequality. if a gay man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. if a straight man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. no inequality. i hate it when people try to gain pity points for the movement by arguing for "equality" when legalistically its already there. we're not talking about equal rights, we're talking about an expansion of rights to include a new factor... even applied society wide it is STILL an expansion of rights, not correcting an "inequality." so please, cut the BS about unfair or unequal because that arguement just doesnt float.

We're not talking about any extension of rights. We're talking about giving men and women the same rights. A woman can't marry a woman, but a man can. That's inequality.

[promethius9594]

TL, your arguement is flawed:

Here's another parallel:

"If a white man who likes black women wants to marry a white woman, he can. But white men cannot marry black women."

Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

first, black women and white women are both homosapian FEMALES. they are the same. there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic so the whole race card doesnt even come into play.

second, and i think we can both agree, to marry a man is an entirely seperate act from marrying a woman. and yes, it is legal to distinguish between men and women when declaring an act legal or not. thus a man cannot walk into a lady's lockeroom shower without getting arrested for sexual misconduct. in the same way we can legally distinguish between a womans right to marry a man and a mans right to marry another man.

like i said, there is no legal inequality right now. if this were an arguement to expand rights then i would be more comfortable on it, but i will always be sketchy of a movement that skews the numbers and bases arguements on faulty premises.

[Gnarf]

second, and i think we can both agree, to marry a man is an entirely seperate act from marrying a woman. and yes, it is legal to distinguish between men and women when declaring an act legal or not. thus a man cannot walk into a lady's lockeroom shower without getting arrested for sexual misconduct. in the same way we can legally distinguish between a womans right to marry a man and a mans right to marry another man.

True, men and women don't have the same rights when it comes to lockeroom showers either. OMFG <<

[Jerr Conner]

Actually, there's plenty of research posted online that shows that Homosexuality most likely does have a genetic disposition. Just Google it.

TL, I Agree with a lot you've stated so far. Especially with the nurse example.

Because if a nurse were racist, and wouldn't let a black person see their white lover in the hospital, wouldn't he or she be disciplined?

I also have to agree it's unfair to thrust $20,000 dollars worth of processes on people. Hell, I couldn't even afford that myself! All I get is SSI.

[ 05-30-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

[promethius9594]

okay, jerr, we have a trend here... why don't you cite ONE study which conclusively proves that homosexuality IS genetic? be forewarned, there are studies which DECLARED that it was, but were later refuted or were flawed in some way which, when corrected, made the expirement irreplicable. please, by all means, cite one which is conclusive proof, since, as you say "there's plenty of research posted online that shows that Homosexuality most likely does have a genetic disposition"

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

To my information, no such study exists... But even less sources agree that it's a choice made. Therefore, discriminating against sexual preference is on par with discriminating on race.