Give me a god damn break

[ponyboy]

New Jersey has almost passed the, what should have been gay marriage in the state of New Jersey. But, they are going to call it civil union. What the fuck is wrong with this country. I can't believe that the religious right still can control the world in the year 2006. I'm so fucking pissed off! Does these fucking assholes forget that we are Americans to? They must have forget that we pay Taxes and most gay people pay more then the shit heads do!
well something is better then none.

Nothing like being dog shit in the eyes of our wonderful government!

[XXXWriterDude]

New Jersey has almost passed the, what should have been gay marriage in the state of New Jersey. But, they are going to call it civil union. What the fuck is wrong with this country. I can't believe that the religious right still can control the world in the year 2006. I'm so fucking pissed off! Does these fucking assholes forget that we are Americans to? They must have forget that we pay Taxes and most gay people pay more then the shit heads do!
well something is better then none.

Nothing like being dog shit in the eyes of our wonderful government!

Baby steps, Pony. I actually think it might be better for us to give up on "gay marriage" for now and focus instead on getting "civil unions" established in all the states. Then, once we've accomplished that, we can start all over again and go for "marriage."

Personally, as long as I'm afforded the same rights and privileges, I don't really care what THEY call it. It's still marriage to me.

[marcjacob]

I hear you and i feel the same way. We have Civil Partenerships in the UK. The thing is, thats another days battle. The first step has to be to get the right to marry. You can call it what you like.

Sooner or later every state will have gay marriage, and every state will call it that because its your basic human right. For now, at least you have these rights. Many states seem like a hundred years away from that.

[TropixxxStudios]

I think John Waters summed it up best:

"It used to be the best part of being gay was that you didn't have to serve in the military or get married."

I have to agree on a lot of levels.

But, I understand your point of view as well.

[DonMike]

I think it's fine, but I think non-religious straight couples should have the option to enter a civil union and leave "Marriage" to those who still try to fool themselves into thinking it's the sanctimonious thing that it's perceived to be now, regardless of all the straight people who abuse it.

I've been for the idea of Civil Unions rather than Marriages for a long time. It's not in wanting what we can't have, it's in wanting the same legal rights. We'll still have kick ass weddings, all the legal benefits and everything else that goes with Marriage. They can keep the word. But why should non-religious couples be forced to adapt to a religious concept? The legal union for everyone should be a Civil Union and the added bonus of a religious ceremony can be called a Marriage. Why make everything so difficult?

[TropixxxStudios]

The legal union for everyone should be a Civil Union and the added bonus of a religious ceremony can be called a Marriage. Why make everything so difficult?

I agree 100%. After all, what is a "marriage" but rather a civil contract between two adults. Keep the marriage at church, and the civil unions at the statehouse.

[Squirt]

Marriage is under the eyes of God, not under the control of a government, at least that's what it has always been until the last few hundred years when governments wanted to "legalize" marriage for taxation purposes. It was all about the money.

Calling marriage between homosexuals something less then marriage between heterosexuals makes our commitments inferior in the eyes of others and the government, or it would be called the same thing.

Having a child, and a long term partner previously, actual marriage would have suited the description of my family, not a "civil union". And the rights my son, and I, would have been afforded, through marriage, of a spouse running out after 5 years of committment, would have been fair to all involved.

In America you have to steamroll ahead to get anywhere... once you settle, like the Gay community has previously, you have to wait that much longer before demanding more rights. The black community steamrolled ahead, no settling, no excuses, full rights or hell to pay. San Francisco is the Gay meca it is today because of the Stonewall riots, not from the Gay community pussy footing around not wanting to piss anyone off, as if we're lucky to get anything.

We are the only minorities that are legally labeled second class citizens in America. The Gay community is deeply wounded. In order for us to heal, we MUST be considered equal in the eyes of the law, and our country, period. Until then we will be angry, vocal, and lobbying for our rights. I'd love to see some riots happen as well

[gaystoryman]

Why call it marriage?

Because to call it something else you foster racism and open the door to abuse and other restrictions. Either you are married or not, to call it less than marriage is to allow others to point fingrs, saying one is getting something extra, and thus make it open to curtailment or outright restrictions. If it is called marriage, you can't restrict the rights for a minority, as it applies to all.

Call it civil union and you can easily restrict survivor benefits for civil union partners, without effecting any married couple, you can restrict the legal recourses for civil union partners while not touching married folk, and it is in that common goal that rights you win now, you keep. Calling it civil union or civil partnerships merely keep the door open for some puritan religious zealot to slam the door, without a whimper from anyone else.

Then there are the legal implications. Marriage connotes one thing, civil union another and some jurist can easily pass judgement that would not be even considered if the couple were married.

Marriage is what it is, to call it less than that is to diminish the rights and lay those rights open to being only partially applied. :kickcan:

[ponyboy]

Everyone here is at lest on the same page. That's a giant step in fighting for anything. I hear you XXWRITERDUDE . But there should be no reason to settle for the lesser. " It's still marriage to me." As soon as you start to live with anyone gay or straight its marriage. Maybe I'm old fashion but that's how I believe. I've been with my other half now for 5 years if that isn't marriage I have no clue what it.

It's so cool that in the UK and like 19 other countries gay people can tie the knot if they want to! MARCJACOB . You are right the hell with what they call it, but it will always sound like we are second class citizens that pay more taxes then straight people do. It is the basic right for Americans, and everyone in the world but we are gantread the right, The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies. " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Stopping me from being able to marry my lover is treading on my right to my unalienable rights!

DON/MIKE then we should have the right to pick what we want.

Until they pass at the Federal level the Permanent partnership, then I could never see my love in the USA again. The first step would be showing the assholes in DC that gay marriage issue is never going to go away! I want you all to know that this issue has turned me into an activist on this issue.

[ponyboy]

All I can say to SQUIRT and GAYSTORYMAN is RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DonMike]

DON/MIKE then we should have the right to pick what we want.

Don/Mike? I am a Gemini but honestly, there is only one of me. LOL!

[Squirt]

A little food for thought... civil unions and marriage are very different as far as rights are concerned. They ARE NOT the same legally. Civil unions are very inferior.

Take a look at this:

==================

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.


Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.


But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

-----------------------------

For more info take a look at all the sites dedicated to showing just how difference marriage and civil unions are.

[Xstr8guy]

Hell, I'd settle for civil rights here in Texas. Civil unions are a pipedream to gay Texans. Gay marriage will never happen here. I would bet if someday the Federal government forces gay marriage laws on the states, it would cause a second civil war.

[Bec]

Recognition of gay marriage a global phenomenon
By Paula L. Ettelbrick
While state after state in the U.S. closes its doors to the prospect of same-sex marriage, gay relationships have been gaining acceptance in the rest of the world.

Last month, South Africa joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain in opening civil marriage to same-sex couples, allowing them equal economic benefits, legal rights and social status as families. The law, passed by an astounding 230-41 vote in Parliament, was in response to an equally notable unanimous decision last year by the South African Constitutional Court. It ruled that the post-apartheid constitution ensures the dignity and equality of all people -- and that includes gay couples wishing to affirm their love and commitment through civil marriage.

Days afterward, when faced with five Israeli gay couples who had married in Canada, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the government is required to officially register them as they would any other foreign marriage.

In the United States, only Massachusetts has enacted full marriage for same-sex couples. Vermont, Connecticut and California have elected to use the less inflammatory terms ``civil union'' or ``domestic partnership,'' and New Jersey is hashing out its terminology. The majority of the states have laws or constitutional amendments restricting ``marriage'' to one woman and one man.

Denmark in 1989 became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex relationships, and Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland swiftly followed. Much of Europe, including France, Germany, Portugal and Hungary, now recognizes same-sex partnerships for a range of purposes, including inheritance, property and social-benefits rights. Countries in formerly communist blocs -- the Czech Republic and Slovenia -- recognize partnerships, and Croatia has extended some economic benefits to same-sex couples.

In September, the Senate in Uruguay voted 25-2 to pass a broad partnership law, positioning that country to be the first Latin American nation to extend legal rights when the law is passed by the full legislature. New Zealand's and Australia's domestic-partnership laws allow some of the most important benefits, such as immigration, inheritance and property rights. The government in Taiwan suggested a bill allowing same-sex marriage, although nothing has yet come of it. In Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Switzerland, some economic and legal rights have been extended by city and regional authorities. Just last month, Mexico City broke ground as the first government entity in Mexico to recognize same-sex civil unions.

These developments clearly mean that the number of same-sex couples whose relationships are legally valid is on the rise. By the end of the decade, it is possible that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples will have entered legal marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

When Britain's domestic-partnership registration law went into effect last December, government ministers predicted that between 11,000 and 22,000 couples would benefit from the law by 2010. More than 6,500 same-sex couples registered in the first year.

About 12,000 Canadian, 7,000 Dutch, 2,500 Belgian and 1,300 Spanish same-sex couples are married.

These unions are having ripple effects around the globe. In Ireland, a gay couple is asking the government to recognize their Canadian marriage. A court in the Caribbean country of Aruba ruled that the Dutch marriage of a gay couple must be registered in Aruba, which is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands.

How this trend will play out in countries that have not yet recognized same-sex relationships is up in the air. Will the United States, for instance, accommodate a major corporation's desire to have one of its top executives from Canada move here with her legal spouse? Or a diplomat (and his domestic partner) from New Zealand? Or an American lucky enough to find the man of his dreams while working in South Africa? Will Sir Elton John's highly publicized civil union with longtime partner David Furnish be recognized by a hospital emergency room in Las Vegas or St. Louis or Salt Lake City should one of them fall ill on a concert tour?

To be sure, the backlash prompted by increased gay visibility, whether through marriage or other demands for equality, has been fierce. South Africa's decision has drawn angry responses from religious and community leaders. Angry crowds in Moscow in May jeered a few dozen gay marchers and demanded that Russia be cleansed of the evils of homosexuality. Likewise, an international gay pride event in Jerusalem had to be held in a stadium -- instead of as a parade -- because of threats and lobbying from ultra-Orthodox Jews and some Muslim and Christian groups.

Gay communities haven't even raised the issue of marriage in Latvia, Uganda and Honduras -- where police violence and state discrimination are standard practice. Yet the governments of those countries have gone out of their way to promote anti-gay hostility by outlawing same-sex marriage.

In Nigeria, a bill awaiting legislative action would impose criminal penalties for engaging in or performing a marriage ceremony for two men or two women.

In the United States, President Bush consistently has pushed the radical measure of amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as has Australia's prime minister, John Howard.

Despite the backlash, one fact is self-evident. The trend toward recognizing the dignity and love of two people of the same sex will not disappear. As barriers to same-sex couples fall, courts, legislatures, religious denominations and businesses everywhere will need to respond.

As Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero proclaimed when his newly elected reform government approved same-sex marriage in 2005: ``We are not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.''


-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA L. ETTELBRICK is the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. She wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times. Published 12=06-2006

[tigermom]

I can see why you would want to have the same label. I call my relationship with the man I love and live with a marriage. I call him my husband and he calls me his wife. We never actually got married btw. Here in Israel, you get the same rights, plus some more, by not being married so we never bothered. There is an issue here with "actual" marriage being restricted to the religious establishment. You can't get married in the city hall, you have to be married by a rabbi (or a clergy man of your faith), otherwise they won't change your status in your ID to married. It's a problem not just for gay people, but for anyone who refuses to abide by the rules of the religious establishment. Personally, I couldn't stand the thought or a religlious Jewish ceramony, yikes, where the woman is essentially sold to the husband...

Anyway, there is a way around that, and that is to get married outside of Israel. Apparently, Israel has signed a treaty with many other countries, by which each country recognizes any kind of marriage carried out by another one. So, you have thousands of couples here every year, which for various reasons, decide to travel and get married in another country, just to avoid the religious marriage and still be recognized by the Home Office here. These would usually be either couples where one of the partners isn't Jewish, or sometimes other issues (for example a Cohen who wants to marry a divorcee), or just people like us who refuse to follow the religious marriage ceramony.

So now, with gay marriages being legalizes all over the world, we finally have the first gay couples that travel outside of Israel and marry in other countries! The first few couples made it back to Israel, having been legally wed in Canada, I think. They had to apply to the Supreme court, which gave a very clear ruling, saying the gender of the people who get married is insignificant.

Hence, we now have legal gay marriage in Israel, not just a civil union.

Found more info about it here -
http://gaylife.about.com/b/a/256964.htm