NJ to allow civil unions - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-16-2006, 05:54 AM   #16
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


...
while i have a boyfriend and not a partner, yet, i can see a time in the future where i might have to draw up a set of legal contracts to protect us, and to protect what we have worked for, from my boyfriend's family. they have been kind to me and they love him very much, even if they've made their Baptists beliefs known and used them to torture him in ways i don't think they totally understand, but there's both a class issue (he makes way more than they do combined) and the fact that i'm never going to be the equal of, say, his sister's husband in their eyes. if we don't protect ourselves, and say he dies in a car wreck, what's to prevent them from barring me from having any say in the funeral, or from taking his share of our theoretical condo/house?

...
I dont want to pry, and really dont intend this as a personal response to you, but what are your concerns mainly about? An ordinary 'pre-nup' kind of deal, or the same legal rights as anyone else? I'm not sure if i either dont understand what your concerns actually are, or if you will end up with a situation which is different to the majority hetero circumstance, in the 'god forbid' territory.
I guess it just seems your concerns are akin to any others where there's personal politics in the extended family dynamic. If civil unions gain you precisely the same legal freedoms and restrictions as heteros, then welcome to marriage.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 08:52 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 04:10 PM
*** DISCLAIMER****

I want it PERFECTLY understood that I am raising questions that have been pestering me for a long time. This reply is NO WAY indicates that I am anti-gay. I have respect for love in any form. My reply addresses purely the LEGAL aspects of same-sex unions.

++++++

Where do we draw the line???

I'm in no way anti-gay but there has to be a line drawn between conventional definitions of marriage and non-conventional definitions.

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and has been this way for thousands of years. You can't just one day decide to change this definition to suit a certain lifestyle just the way you can't take a buffalo and suddenly decide that it's a dog. It's as simple as that.

What would happen if one day advocates of beastiality decide that they want to recognize a union between a man and his horse? For that matter, why are they prosecuting Warren Jeffs for being a polygamist? He thinks what he's doing is right and that there's nothing wrong with a man having numerous wives.

I have no problem with same-sex unions and I agree that two people who have committed themselves to each other should have some rights as to social security, insurance, adoption, etc. However, I don't believe that these unions should be defined as "marriage", and I think that same-sex unions should be granted rights that are different than the rights for conventional married couples.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 11:02 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:10 AM
John Stewart totally shares your concerns, and I was going to link to his hilarious clip making fun of people like you, but since google bought youtube youtube has been useless.

Seriously what rights, different than conventional married couples, should same sex couples (not) be granted? And your association of homosexual relationships with bestiality DOES in fact imply that you have a twisted, dare I say anti-, view of what it means to be gay.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 11:47 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:10 AM
A person unlike a dog can consent, and that goes for polygamists too.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 01:21 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


I dont want to pry, and really dont intend this as a personal response to you, but what are your concerns mainly about? An ordinary 'pre-nup' kind of deal, or the same legal rights as anyone else? I'm not sure if i either dont understand what your concerns actually are, or if you will end up with a situation which is different to the majority hetero circumstance, in the 'god forbid' territory.
I guess it just seems your concerns are akin to any others where there's personal politics in the extended family dynamic. If civil unions gain you precisely the same legal freedoms and restrictions as heteros, then welcome to marriage.


as it stands right now, in the state of Virginia which just passed a really, really draconian law, i have no status to my boyfriend other than being his friend. as of right now, that's fine -- we're not yet domestic partners. but if we moved in together, bought a house/condo together, and acted as if we were in a marriage together, this is all meaningless in the eyes of the state of Virginia -- i have no legal power over "our" money, over "our" condo, or over decisions regarding his health and this would include hospital visitation rights. thorugh his company, i could get on his health insurance (and, as a freelancer, that's a big deal for me), but that's only because his company does their benefits through their New Jersey branch. in Virginia, there's no status for domestic partners; health benefits offered through employers are for spouses ONLY, you must be legally married in the eyes of the state of Virginia to receive benefits. before this law passed, it was up to the individual employer whether or not to extend health benefits to domestic partners -- and most of the Fortune 500 comanies do this now, any major corporation understands the need to attract and retain diverse talent. however, this new law makes one wonder if such a company were based in Virginia if the offering of such benefits is now a violation of the law since there's a ban on any legal contracts "approximating" those of marriage.

it's pretty fucked up in VA.

also, there are many, many stories i hear from older gay men who have had long term partners with vengeful, spiteful families who, upon the untimely death of one of the couple, have swooped in and seized all of the assets belonging to the deceased half of the couple, and sometimes the family will even bar the partner from visiting the sick/dying partner in the hospital. it happens.

a civil union would give each partner essentially the same legal recognition as the spouse of a heterosexual; that's what i'm most concerned with -- protecting what we might one day work together towards (a house, a 2nd home, a retirement fund) from immediate family members who might use my lack of legal status to push me aside and seize 50% of all of that, or if they would use my lack of legal status to prevent me from making decisions about his health in a Terri Schiavo situation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 01:24 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Axver
Wow, this is great news. I'm glad to know not all of the US is regressing.

the US is a very, very complex place.

i would imagine that i would have more in common with you, in terms of broad political attitudes and general popular culture, than i do with my boyfriend's family. i felt far more culture shock when i visited them in rural Tennessee than i felt in Europe.

the difference between, say, a Los Angeleno and a small town Tennessean is quite profound.

but that's a whole other thread, and an interesting one.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 01:28 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:10 PM
delete
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 01:31 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:10 PM
One shouldn't compare bestiality to homosexuality.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 02:42 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I understand that point and I think I even agree with it, but if you look at jurisdictions where gay marriage exists and is called that - marriage - like Canada, for example, nothing has changed! And the population has really gotten used to the idea to the extent that the Conservative government said that this issue was essentially permanently closed (like our abortion issue).

So we do have precedent and we can see that hell hasn't broken loose just because we started calling a civil union marriage.
The question in my mind is ultimately whether pastors and churches should be mandated to perform marriages that they disagree with on religious grounds. The question could easily be addressed by the proposal indra raised.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:02 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:10 AM
Having the government force Churches to endorse such a policy is no less a violation than having the government endorse a religious belief. Secularism really is a wonderful thing.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:40 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


The question in my mind is ultimately whether pastors and churches should be mandated to perform marriages that they disagree with on religious grounds.
Every pastor has the right to refuse to wed a couple, be it straight or gay. I've seen pastors deny a wedding because the bride had a glass of champagne before the service, I've seen them denied because their was a question of abuse, etc...

But if a pastor denies a wedding strictly because it's two women then he or she should really examine their own faith and education.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:43 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:10 AM
What? A lot of these faiths are very specific about the sin of homosexuality and they should not be under compunction to sanction it. I think that to expect these beliefs to change with the times goes against them and their intention completely, revealed truth shouldn't change just because man wants it to.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:44 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


The question in my mind is ultimately whether pastors and churches should be mandated to perform marriages that they disagree with on religious grounds. The question could easily be addressed by the proposal indra raised.
Legal and religious marriage are separate things. I understand why it bothers some people to have them called the same thing, but you are inaccurate in your assumption about how marriage plays out. Marriage under the law simply means that a couple has the right to go to city hall and get a marriage liscence, and a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony. Then the couple has obtained the rigths of marriage (which Irvine discussed above) under the law. Allowing gay marriage in a legal sense does not mean that religious institutions are forced to perform gay marriages. The Catholic church in Massachusetts certainly isn't. It's all by choice of the institution or religious official.

So, if you want to call ALL legal marriages, for gay or straight couples, civil unions, that's fine, and preserve the word marriage for religious use. I guarantee some congregations and officials will marry gay couples, but others won't, and nobdy will be forced to, just as now. The important part is that the legal terminology be the same for gay and straight couples.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:47 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
What? A lot of these faiths are very specific about the sin of homosexuality and they should not be under compunction to sanction it. I think that to expect these beliefs to change with the times goes against them and their intention completely, revealed truth shouldn't change just because man wants it to.
That's not what I said. I feel this "faith" is often based on lies. If this is the case then it sure the hell should change when truths are revealed.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:51 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:10 AM
How do you know it's based on lies, telephone to God?

Any being that would want to tie humanity up with a blood debt for two millenia couldn't have a problem with making some people gay just to test them out or mess them up.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com