<p>Just the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, states as “the laboratories of democracy.”</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Ah, civil unions - the ugly duckling that neither side really wants.</p>
<p>My sister is a legislator in NJ. She sent me the full note from Joe Roberts. I know I could never do what she does. He didn’t learn a thing from the summer budget business. Starts off the note to his own party members with the ‘least likely to help forge any consensus’ statement possible. </p>
<p>It seems there is ‘tacit agreement’ on the big picture here and the chance to get the details right as well. Is there no good will left? </p>
<p>As for partners, and partners etc…I think it is just a matter of time and of exposure before it feels like a comfortable descriptor. From my perspective, it is also a role defining gesture as well.</p>
<p>Oh well, one small step for peoplekind.</p>
<p>The trouble with defining marriage or civil unions on a state by state basis is that it still doesn’t solve the most egregious unfairness of it all - the federal tax code and the ability of one state to not recognize a union that is legal in another state. I really think we need a national consensus on this issue.</p>
<p>I think that all marriages are civil because the state doesn’t care about the religious ceremony- otherwise wouldn’t it dictate what the ceremony had to contain?
I also think that civil marriages have to be recognized by the federal govt
and that this inclusion will bring us closer to having federal non discriminatory laws in employment and housing.</p>
<p>Many could live with civil unions. Most will fight against gay marriage.</p>
<p>It’s really easy, isn’t it?</p>
<p>what is the difference, legally, between civil unions and marriage? I am serious here…</p>
<p>If you did a bullet point list of rights, responsibilities, etc for each, what is missing on the civil union side…</p>
<p>are we talking apples and oranges, or potatoes and potAtoes…</p>
<p>and btw, nice title FS- why not talk about Bush and his disdain for gay marrige, guess if you further your convoluted logic the leader of our contry is a homophobe and a bigot</p>
<p>Why don’t we just require that both heterosexual and homosexual couples have a state-registered “union” if they want the property, next-of-kin, and other rights given to traditional couples? </p>
<p>Then we can leave “marriage” for religious institutions. If your church will marry you and your partner, you’re married. If not, you’ll either have to change your place of worship or be satisfied with your “civil union.”</p>
<p>That way, all couples would get the same state/federal rights, and each religion could decide for itself what’s considered a valid marriage in the eyes of their clergy and parishoners.</p>
<p>CGM, good question. Here is a cut and paste directly from the Court’s decision, that sheds a little light. It seems to me that it is pure semantics. Some gays are offended at the notion of “seperate but equal” because it harkens back to the days of racial discrimination, particularly in the schools.
</p>
<p>In some states, like Pennsylvania, it is a little bit more complicated. My wife and I are married, in the Quaker tradition in Pennsylvania, without benefit of state registration or anything else from the state for that matter. In recognition of this long-standing tradition, the common law in Pennsylvania is that if you act like you are married, and people consider you married, and you don’t disabuse them of the idea, you are married in the eyes of the Commonwealth, provided there is one man and one woman. It could be for one day, or ten years - doesn’t matter. In theory, if this occurred for even one day, you are required to obtain a legal divorce if your intent is to be separated.</p>
<p>A change in Pennsylvania regarding same-sex couples would also have to deal with common law understandings. At the opposite extreme, it would have to deal in California with laws regarding “confidential marriage” and the palimony statutes.</p>
<p>The point being that, in these states to ensure full and equal rights and benefits, civil union won’t cut it.</p>
<p>It will be a long time, if ever, for gay marriage to pass nationally.</p>
<p>The percentages against it are huge.</p>
<p>The generational clock will take care of the matter, following a similar path as to what happened with interracial dating/marriage. The bigots and homophobes have lost Gen Y and I doubt that Gen Z or later is going to relapse. The ban against gay marriage can go into the dustbin of history, right alongside Marxism.</p>
<p>I’ve yet to hear of one straight couple whose marriage has been threatened by the prospect of gay marriage. Almost invariably the biggest threats are heterosexual connections with a third party.</p>
<p>p2n, people in Canada thought that, too, but they were wrong, and after three years of gay marriage being legal, only good has come of it. Couples who wanted to marry and formalize their partnerships have been able to, either in their church or in civil ceremonies. No church has been forced to conduct a gay marriage if they don’t want to, although, from what I understand, very few have a problem with it.</p>
<p>TheDad, I think you’re right. The generation of our children is much more accepting, tolerant, and loving than many in our generation. I have hope for the future because of that.</p>
<p>I agree with the idea that our generation and the generation older just needs to die off!</p>
<p>I live in what’s considered a homophobic western state. I’ve made it my business when I sub at the high school to quiz kids on their feelings about gays. Very few people are “out” around here, but the kids have gotten exposure from TV. I’m pleasantly surprised at how few kids care about the issue. Some are puzzled why it’s such a big deal. If what passes for homophobia in our state these days is comments such as, “I don’t care what they do as long as they don’t do it in front of me,” I guess that’s progress!</p>
<p>A question, from Mini’s post: we are all familiar with common-law marriage (seven years, usually, cohabitating); how would this change with gay marriage? I could imagine sharing an apartment with a female roommate for that amount of time, and I really would not want to be married in the eyes of the State afterwards.</p>
<p>“Some gays are offended at the notion of “separate but equal” because it harkens back to the days of racial discrimination, particularly in the schools.”</p>
<p>I’m offended too. That’s why I’d like to see states be in charge of civil unions, (which in essence they are already for the most part), and religious institutions in charge of marriage.</p>
<p>Ariesathena, typically common law marriage requires that the couple “hold themselves out” as being married. While obviously you coud have a contested issue of fact (such as when one roommate dies with assets and the other suddenly decides they were “married”) I think that usually it wouldn’t be too difficult to tell the difference between roommates and spouses if gay marriage was legalized and being “in the closet” became less common.</p>
<p>Or when one roommate wants to marry and all of a sudden she cannot… or when they go their separate ways, and one realizes that the other is quite wealthy… yeah, I can see the issues. </p>
<p>Don’t forget (not that you wouldn’t know this), but a lot of law, if you are talking about contested areas of fact, requires a trial. Sure, the party in the right would eventually prevail, but that would be what, a year or two later? Both parties would have to spend a lot of money on attorneys. In reality, many people may opt to settle or may not be able to afford the litigation. </p>
<p>If it is the state that denies a marriage license, for example, on the basis of common-law gay marriage, I can imagine that it would wreck havoc with people’s lives. The potential for harm is not, IMO, a reason why we shouldn’t have gay marriage, but is a reason why advocates for gay marriage should discuss and require that our laws be updated en masse.</p>
<p>Common law marriage is actually quite uncommon these days - and of the few states which have recognized it in the past several have changed their laws in recent years. All the issues you mention crop up with non-gay marriage today, of course, and that’s why this area of law is well suited for a federalist approach - the states try different things; that which works tends to supplant that which doesn’t over time.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is any state that recognizes “common-law marriage” anymore. But even when they did, it required a fairly high level of proof that the couple in fact intended to be married (and no strict requirement that they had lived together for a number of years, although that could be evidence of their intent to marry).</p>
<p>It was really a relic of pioneer days, when getting a qualified official to perform a marriage before the baby arrived was not always easy. Also, to deal with people whose marriage records had been lost to fires, floods, or left behind in another country. The doctrine was a way for courts and state officials to decide that a couple had in fact been married. That was often a boon to the wife and children in the event of an abandonment or divorce, and it was of supreme importance if one partner died in determining the inheritance rights and taxability of the surviving partner. It was also important for the children in the days when “bastardy” was grounds for legal discrimination.</p>