"spousal unions"

[Irvine511]

a very interesting, and i think effective, distinction:

[q]N.H. House passes civil unions for same-sex couples
By Associated Press
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - Updated: 03:03 PM EST

CONCORD, N.H. - The House took a historic step Wednesday toward joining neighboring Vermont and a handful of other states in approving civil unions for same-sex couples.

The House voted 243-129 for civil unions that would give same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples. Same-sex unions from other states would be recognized if they were legal in the state where they were performed.

Supporters pushed a message of equality: ”Please do the right thing _ what you know in your heart is right,” said Rep. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua.

”Help our daughters, friends, sons and neighbors live their lives the way I believe we all want to live with the people we love - in peace and dignity.”

The bill was expected to pass, but the debate dragged to three hours, with opponents throwing out last minute changes and plenty of lawmakers on both sides wanting to be heard.

One legislator tried to sidetrack civil unions by proposing relationship contracts for unmarried adults. That failed. Another proposed expanding civil unions to any two unmarried people.

Republican Rep. Maureen Mooney, a marriage opponent, turned the equality argument against gay rights activists. She said restricting civil unions to same sex-couples amounted to discrimination against heterosexual couples, roommates and others who might want to share legal benefits as a couple.

”We in New Hampshire will establish ourselves as a leader in caring for all combinations of family relationships,” she said. ”I say let’s get to equality today.”

Democrats called it an attempt to confuse the issue.

”I’ve not received one e-mail, one letter, one phone call from any two brothers seeking to enter a relationship. Have you?” asked Rep. David Pierce, D-Hanover.

The House used a competing bill to legalize gay marriage to launch a study. Gay-marriage supporters argue that civil unions would amount to separate-but-equal discrimination.

The civil unions bill now goes to the Senate, where Republican Bob Clegg has proposed legalizing ”contractual cohabitation” as an alternative. His bill would give gays and other adults who don’t choose to marry the same legal rights as married couples.

Gov. John Lynch opposes same-sex marriage but has avoided taking a position on civil unions.

”I will weigh in on it once I make up my mind on it,” he said Wednesday.

Lynch supports providing health care benefits to state workers’ same-sex partners.

If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire will join Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut in allowing civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gays to marry.

California authorizes domestic partnerships with benefits similar to civil unions. [/q]

 

[deep]

I think people should be able to discriminate, based upon their religious beliefs within their own institutions and groups.

And for the sake of progress (in America) I would like to see "Marriage" taken out of the argument.

Let religious groups have "marriage" as their own label.

All others should receive "Civil Unions".

Think of it like this.

If a person wants to attend a public education institution and receive a degree, it is universally recognized.

If a person wants to attend a religious institution for learning, that is their business.
If that religious institution will meet the criteria and seek recognition their curriculum for a degree, fine.

Likewise, if a religious institution wants their "Marriage" to meet the legal requirements of "Civil Unions" then fine, let them say this is a Marriage / Civil Union.

Also,

Religious institutions do not have a right to define what "murder" is.
Even though they have taken a stand against it
and believe they have "special instruction" about it from a higher being.

If a person is found guilty of murder by the state, it is a state issue only.
But if the church wants to piggyback on that,
and banished them from the 'church records' fine.

If a person is found "not guilty", the state lets them go free.
If the church still wants to banish them, fine.
The 'banishment" is outside of the state's control,
and the "banishment of the Church" should have no affect under the state's laws.

 

[Irvine511]

Eliot Spitzer hits the nail on the head:

[q]Partners unable to enter into a civil marriage — and their children — lack basic legal protections taken for granted by married couples. In such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension benefits and testimonial privileges, married couples receive important safeguards against the loss or injury of a spouse, and crucial assurances against legal intrusion into their marital privacy. As important, unions lacking the state's recognition are denoted, by force of law, as somehow not equal to other comparable relationships. Civil marriage is the means by which the state defines a couple's place in society. Those who are excluded from its rubric are told by the institutions of the State, in essence, that their solemn commitment to one another has no legal weight.

Just as the right to marry confers important benefits on individuals, the institution of marriage produces incalculable benefits for society, by fostering stable familial relationships. Same-sex couples who wish to marry are not simply looking to obtain additional rights, they are seeking out substantial responsibilities as well: to undertake significant and binding obligations to one another, and to lives of "shared intimacy and mutual financial and emotional support." Granting legal recognition to these relationships can only strengthen New York's families, by extending the ability to participate in this crucial social institution to all New Yorkers.[/q]

 

[deep]

"This bill provides same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into civil marriages as opposite-sex couples. The bill also provides that no member of the clergy may be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony."

I am glad you brought this thread back.

I was going to do the same. I think Oregon just passed a CU law.

I think many if not most Religions, almost by there very existence, discriminate.
So let them, one can turn their back and walk away.

 

[martha]

I'm so tired of "same-sex" unions being the alternative to marriage when they're really marriage without saying marriage. How can anyone be for these unions, yet claim to be against gay marriage? What a bunch of hooey.

Just let adults get married. How fucking hard is this?

 

[deep]

I'm so tired of "same-sex" unions being the alternative to marriage when they're really marriage without saying marriage. How can anyone be for these unions, yet claim to be against gay marriage? What a bunch of hooey.

Just let adults get married. How fucking hard is this?

I'm tired too

and I don't disagree with you


but, I have no confidence in some Religious groups being fair any time soon


so the best we can do is let them have the term "marriage".

and give same sex couples the opportunity to have the same benefits and responsibilities

 

[martha]

so the best we can do is let them have the term "marriage".

But why does it have to belong to them only? Why do they get special rights?

 

[Smallville]

I'm so tired of "same-sex" unions being the alternative to marriage when they're really marriage without saying marriage. How can anyone be for these unions, yet claim to be against gay marriage? What a bunch of hooey.

Just let adults get married. How fucking hard is this?

You can't force the church to do something against their beliefs.

I'm still not a supporter of unions, but it's better than forcing the church to marry homosexuals.

 

[martha]

You can't force the church to do something against their beliefs.

When in blue blazes did I say that I'm for "forcing" churches to do anything?! People have civil weddings every day, and not a minister in sight!

Yes, people can be married without a church wedding.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You can't force the church to do something against their beliefs.

I'm still not a supporter of unions, but it's better than forcing the church to marry homosexuals.

Yes, the wonderful thing about secularism is that it also stops the state stepping on the toes of religious institutions in all but the most extreme situations. But it's an issue of individual choice and freedom of two people to enter into a binding contract for both posessions and any benefits.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm still not a supporter of unions, but it's better than forcing the church to marry homosexuals.

why would you want to deny people the tools needed to build solid, ideally life-long relationships?

 

[Irvine511]

also, you heard it here first: Spitzer in 2016.

 

[anitram]

Spitzer is incredibly impressive. He had the best campaign ads of anyone I've ever seen. Absolutely amazing - that's what you get when you hire an elite Manhattan ad agency rather than the usual political hacks.