• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 20-45.3 as follows:
§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
I don't see anything in there that says the contract has to be trying to imitate marriage, just that it bestows the priveleges or obligations of marriage on two people of the same sex. I'm not familiar with how laws work, so forgive me, but how does a partnership contract for business partners differ from a "regular" (right word?) partnership contract?
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
It specifically states what type of legal contract it includes.
It only specifies legal contracts that bestow the privilages and obligations of marriage...it doesn't specify that it has to be a marriage contract. They only have to be similar...not identical.
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
Maize said:
...That's why we need this done at the federal level. But in the meantime we are putting out fires state to state...
I play a lawyer on the internet:D, and I think a challenge to state same sex marriage bans and DOMA can be successful because the bans violate the 'full faith and credit' clause and the 'equal protection' amendment in the US Constitution.

btw...Frubals for a good list.:)
pah said:
...Another point is that the language would seem to say that business partnerships that offer marriage-type benefits (like right of survivorship or insurance in each other's name) might make the business partnership void.
In a business 'relationship', the contract spells out specific duties, obligations, and benefits of the business relationship. Rights of survivorship and mutual insurance fall under the concept of 'business continuity'. While it's certainly worth a try, I don't think this angle is going to work.:sorry1:
 

Pah

Uber all member
CaptainXeroid said:
...In a business 'relationship', the contract spells out specific duties, obligations, and benefits of the business relationship. Rights of survivorship and mutual insurance fall under the concept of 'business continuity'. While it's certainly worth a try, I don't think this angle is going to work.:sorry1: [/font]
It was also mentioned to me that since that sentence was in the "marriage section" of the bill of rights, it can be argued that it only applies to marriage.

But in the sense I see the game being played by the suppressors of equality and justice, I don't mind putting the idea in a letter to the editor. And I wouldn't mind if a civil case was brought against an opposing Senator or Delegate who happens to be in a same-sex business partnership.

Fair play? Yeah I'll go along with that when they stop putting religious values into law.
 

pdoel

Active Member
Aqualung said:
I'm not saying it's not discriminatory and wrong. I'm just saying it's clearer than you guys would have had me to believe.
Well, no offense, but you are rather young. PLEASE don't tell me that you are an expert on law. People study MANY years and still interpret laws differently.

Already, there have been a few cases in Ohio where a woman was beaten by her boyfriend, but due to these laws, there was nothing that could be done to her boyfriend.

So, while it may "seem" clear to you, it's not. Judges can still interpret these laws anyway they choose.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Aqualung said:
Probably really bad lawyers. :D

But seriously, no judge would uphold that interpretation of the law. It's like saying, "Everybody must right in blue pens" and interpreting that to mean that red pens are the only acceptable pens.
Don't you believe it; it only takes one Judge who is not a diehard conservative with an axe to grind to set a precedent.

That's the wonderful thing about law; it is forever adapting.;)
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Five pages in and not one person has attempted to dispute the Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality. Nor has any opponents to equality offered me an answer to the questions I asked of them:
We've established time and again that there is no secular or legal reasons to discriminate against same sex couples. The only reason that is ever given is that it is against the majority's religion. So, I ask yet again of those who oppose civil marriage equality, why are BGLT Americans being denied equal legal rights and being punished for not following someone else's religious beliefs? What do you disagree with in the above list? Why do you target BGLT families to hurt?
I'm very interested in hearing why some people think BLGT people don't deserve the same equal legal rights as they enjoy. Give me a chance to prove to you that we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

Pah

Uber all member
CaptainXeroid said:
I play a lawyer on the internet:D, and I think a challenge to state same sex marriage bans and DOMA can be successful because the bans violate the 'full faith and credit' clause and the 'equal protection' amendment in the US Constitution.

btw...Frubals for a good list.:)
In a business 'relationship', the contract spells out specific duties, obligations, and benefits of the business relationship. Rights of survivorship and mutual insurance fall under the concept of 'business continuity'. While it's certainly worth a try, I don't think this angle is going to work.:sorry1:
Just as an aside, why wouldn't, in the hands of a good lawyer, "continuity of a family relationship" be the same as "business continuity"? Isn't it still the protection of assests? Aren't they both legal entities. Social security is designed for continutity of income for heterosexual survivors of the family entity, for instance. Just thinking!

The opposition to same-sex marriage is wrongly centered on the reproduction aspect of family. When family and marriage is reduced to more basic defining commonalities (such as an expression for love, such as rearing children, such as companionship, such as "soul mate" factor) the "one man-one woman" concept is short-sighted.

Among other ways, "new" law is made in courts by taking precendent and extending it to fit existent "new" conditions. It is done by re-examining basics.
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
Pah said:
Just as an aside, why wouldn't, in the hands of a good lawyer, "continuity of a family relationship" be the same as "business continuity"? Isn't it still the protection of assests? Aren't they both legal entities. Social security is designed for continutity of income for heterosexual survivors of the family entity, for instance. Just thinking!...
It's definitely some sound thinking, and in the hands of a good lawyer, I think a compelling case could be made.:) The biggest hurdle would be overcoming the argument that the legal language in contracts and other documentation set a business relationship apart from marriage.

I agree with the need to challenge DOMA and SSM marriage bans, but I think the most winnable argument is a Constitutional challenge in Federal court.

Maize said:
Five pages in and not one person has attempted to dispute the Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality. Nor has any opponents to equality offered me an answer to the questions I asked of them:...
I didn't want Pah's & my legal conference to get in the way of the point of this thread.:jiggy:
 
Maize said:
From HRC: :jam:

Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality

10. Marriage equality would build on America’s tradition of moving civil rights forward and erasing the inequities of the past. More than 10 nations already allow same-sex couples to get married or to enter federally recognized domestic partnerships. What’s more, the fact that excluding same-sex couples from marriage has a long history in this country doesn’t necessarily mean that this policy is in keeping with American values. The real tradition in this country has been to pass laws to safeguard the American people and to expand laws where they leave citizens unprotected, as was done for voting rights and workplace protections. It is also an American tradition to abandon discriminatory laws, even if they are popular – as were bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws segregating the races in everyday life.

9. Marriage protects couples nationwide. Unlike civil unions and domestic partner registries, which aren’t portable, marriages are recognized across state lines, under the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. If the question of recognition is left to the states, same-sex couples in some states might not achieve equality for decades. After all, it wasn’t until 2000 that Alabama voters removed laws against interracial marriage from the state constitution – and that was with a solid 40 percent voting to keep the law on the books.

8. Separate is not equal. Although any step toward legal recognition of same-sex couples and their families is a step in the right direction, GLBT families will not be truly equal until they, too, can receive marriage licenses. As American history has proven, a separate but equal system does not ensure real equality. And nothing short of marriage would provide same-sex couples with the more than 1,000 benefits, responsibilities and protections afforded under federal law on the basis of marital status.

7. Public support is growing. The Human Rights Campaign released results in August 2003 from a poll (conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates and the Republican firm American Viewpoint) showing that 50 percent of registered voters support or accept granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. A total of 47 percent were opposed. There is no consensus in this country around denying the legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples. In fact, polls show us that a plurality of voters support or accept granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. And, according to a Sept. 22, 2003, ABC News survey, only 20 percent would agree with amending the U.S. Constitution to ban marriage for gays and lesbians.

6. GLBT people deserve equal access to the American dream. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people grow up dreaming of falling in love, getting married and growing old together. Just as much as the next person, same-sex couples should be able to fulfill that dream. We know from anecdotal evidence that after same-sex couples have a commitment ceremony, their friends and family treat them differently – as a married couple. Shouldn’t they, too, have the legal security that goes along with that?

5. Marriage provides families stability and security. One thing that both sides of the marriage issue can agree upon is that marriage strengthens families. Children are more secure if they are raised in homes with two loving parents who have a legal relationship with them and can share the responsibility of parenthood. According to conservative estimates from the 2000 census, there are more than 1 million children being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, children of same-sex couples are left without important protections, such as Social Security survivor benefits. These children should not be penalized just because their parents are gay.

4. There are hundreds of ways in which state laws take marital status into account, including some of the most basic of human rights. State laws protect married couples in extremely important ways, such as allowing hospital visitation, the right to inherit without a will and the right to make decisions in a medical emergency. Some of these can be secured through costly legal documents, but not all of them can. Furthermore, same-sex couples – who pay the same taxes and work just as hard as other couples – should not be forced to pay higher taxes and high legal fees just because of whom they love.

3. The Constitution promises liberty and justice to all Americans, not just the majority. Opponents of marriage equality are pushing a divisive measure that would amend the U.S. Constitution to state that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” The Constitution has been used throughout American history to ensure, protect and expand the individual liberties of Americans. It has never been amended to single out a class of people for unequal treatment, but it has been amended to grant freedom of speech, religious liberty and voting rights for women. The Constitution should secure equality, not restrict it.

2. No religious institution would be required to perform a ceremony. Just as no religious institution can be required by the government to marry an interfaith couple, no religious institution could or should be told to marry a same-sex couple. Right now, the government fails to ensure religious freedom when it refuses to honor the unions of same-sex couples performed by one religion the same way it honors those of opposite-sex couples. Let me just say that again so everyone understands,
No religious institution would be required to perform a ceremony.

1. There are at least 1,049 protections, benefits and responsibilities extended to married couples under federal law, according to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office. Gay and lesbian couples in lifelong relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections under the law. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner, despite paying payroll taxes. They must pay federal income taxes on their employer’s contributions toward their domestic partner’s health insurance, while married employees do not have to pay such taxes for their spouses. They must pay all estate taxes when a partner dies. They often pay significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401(k) from their partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. All American families deserve these crucial protections.


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

We've established time and again that there is no secular or legal reasons to discriminate against same sex couples. The only reason that is ever given is that it is against the majority's religion. So, I ask yet again of those who oppose civil marriage equality, why are BGLT Americans being denied equal legal rights and being punished for not following someone else's religious beliefs? What do you disagree with in the above list? Why do you target BGLT families to hurt?

Anyone who is in the Richmond, VA area today and think it is an affront to the Constitution, to civil rights, to liberty and freedom, and to the institution of marriage to deny same sex couples equal legal rights, I invite you to join me and members of my church and others at noon at the "Make Love Legal" event downtown in John Marshall Courts Building.



We are
hoping that this event will provide an opportunity to educate voters about the proposed "marriage amendment" that will go before voters this November, and about how far it could go in taking basic rights away from Virginians. As presently written, the amendment’s vague and broad language could jeopardize the contractual rights of ANY two people of the same sex who enter into private contracts. It could void wills, medical directives, powers of attorney and insurance policies. It could strip healthcare benefits, and could void parenting and custody agreements.









The threats posed by such discriminatory legislation in Virginia have impacted my church directly. More than one family in the congregation has made the decision to leave Virginia for states such as Massachusetts and Maryland, whose laws treat same-sex couples and their families more equitably.

Happy Valentine's Day :blowkiss:




I taked to the guys at work about gay marriage in the past and the general agreement about it was that if you don't require a chuch to do them, then its o.k with us. It's a free country.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Joe bag of doughnuts said:
I taked to the guys at work about gay marriage in the past and the general agreement about it was that if you don't require a chuch to do them, then its o.k with us. It's a free country.
Well since that's never even been a real issue (this is about legal rights), then it's all good! :highfive:
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Joe bag of doughnuts said:
Good. Can I ask you a question? When gays get gay marriage, is there any other "right" you feel gay people aren't getting now?
Just the almost 1100 federal rights and protections that go along with civil marriage. Other than that, I'm good.
 
Maize said:
Just the almost 1100 federal rights and protections that go along with civil marriage. Other than that, I'm good.
Fine and good with me(and most of the guys). I just don't want it to become another quota thing were a collage or a job has to give preference to gays before they can hire someone else. Worry about that kind of liberal crap is behind some of the fear of gay marriage with the crew.

But its time to put this nonsense behind us and move on to issues that the politicians don't want to talk do anything about.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Joe bag of doughnuts said:
But its time to put this nonsense behind us and move on to issues that the politicians don't want to talk do anything about.
It'll be time to move on when we've got equal rights.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Joe bag of doughnuts said:
Fine and good with me(and most of the guys). I just don't want it to become another quota thing were a collage or a job has to give preference to gays before they can hire someone else.
I haven't heard anything about that. The only thing that comes to mind in regards to the workplace is protections to ensure someone is not fired simply because of their sexual orientation. But most places already have something like that, a nondiscrimination policy - at least the major companies do, but it's not a quota thing.
 
Maize said:
I haven't heard anything about that. The only thing that comes to mind in regards to the workplace is protections to ensure someone is not fired simply because of their sexual orientation. But most places already have something like that, a nondiscrimination policy - at least the major companies do, but it's not a quota thing.
See, you and I are not all that far apart.:) What gets the average Joe's blood to boil is when some law is passed that makes his life harder and harder to live. We are concerned that we are going to lose our jobs overseas or how to send our kids to college. We don't stay up at nights with worry because of gay marriage. I know it's important to you. But this country is about to put the final screw to us working Joes and most people don't even know it or seem to care. We need to come together as a people quickly. But that's another topic.

Good luck Maize.
 

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
michel said:
Don't you believe it; it only takes one Judge who is not a diehard conservative with an axe to grind to set a precedent.

That's the wonderful thing about law; it is forever adapting.;)
I dont understand, are you saying it is good to have renegade judges who make up law instead of interpret it? please explain
 
Top