Thousands in Los Angeles protest gay-marriage ban

[..]

This group of people have civil unions. They already have the same rights.

They do NOT, except for CT, NH, VT, OR & WA. And those are not recognized any where else. Therefore, they do not have the same rights. Very simple. And very wrong.

 

What rights are they missing out on: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf per the government.

 

This should be a national thing, not a state thing.

 

Cheers,

SD

[USVirgin]

It was about Mexican food.

[Guest lazyphil]

<>

 

like i said do we ask animals their consent to be slaughtered for food or tortued in vivisection, ok, not relevent.....or is it.....this thread about human rights/gays to marry etc, what about animal rights, do gays eat meat (yes we know they do eat some meat!) and use medicines?, if so, is right on their side?....or is it a case of me me me?

[Faustian]

It's a lame comparison and you know it LP.

[..]

Very lame Phil. Have you heard of empathy...put yourself in their shoes. It was NOT possible just 40 years ago in some places in the US for you to marry your wife. How would that make you feel? Was that right? This situation is no different, nor are the arguments.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Guest lazyphil]

i fess up my arguements are somewhat tenuous and yes i would be pissed off if i couldn't of married a woman of colour. but asking solidarity from me in marrying a woman of colour from gay rights activists is no different in a person in more unusual sexual desires to seek out solidarity from gays. why should they--and why should i?....as for your previous comment regarding me comparing humans with animals, well i hold animals in higher esteem by and large than humans, they're not parasites like us.

 

i'm not religious btw, but i like recieving lots of presents at christmas.

[itsmedave]

I also enjoy receiving many presents at Christmas.

 

But to the point of civil unions getting equal rights...it just doesn't matter.

 

In the good old US of A we are not supposed to create a separate set of rules for "some" people while the rest of us have our institutions. Separate but equal has never, will never work, because it, well...separates people. And they are just as American as you or I am...and that is why it can't be left to the states...cracker or otherwise. (I personally have a fondness for the cheese cracker states)

[Guest lazyphil]

eh. firstly i'm english, didn't cromwell (oliver) country give it away?. 2nd, what is a 'cracker state'?

 

Suadum, speaking of empathy, where was/is the empathy from the older generation of african americans?

[Steve]

At the end of the day, its denying a right based on a segment's of the population's religious belief. As stated prior, that is not only unconstitutional but dangerous.

 

Segregationist pastors and politicians used biblical reference (incorrectly I might add) to support their legal denial of marriage between races (...using the biblical passage about not being evenly yoked..meant to be between a believer and non believer NOT based on race).

 

As SD pointed out, civil unions and marriages are different.

 

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

Here are a few differences:

 

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. (Okay, I'm no fan of guys bringing hundreds of katoeys into the U.S..lol..but it still isn't fair).

 

 

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.

 

 

Also, the protections do not extend beyond the border of the state the civil union is legal in and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

 

Married folks are married when they leave the state of California and go to Georgia. Not so with Civil Unions. They can (and will) be denied things married people have rights to.

 

I'm not comfortable with it but that's my problem, not theirs. Its not right to legislate our personal discomfort with something. If that's the case there would illegal to be a NY Yankees fan in Boston.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[allistar]

I So, what I'm getting from this thread is, if the laws in all 50 states were changed so that civil unions offered the same rights as a marriage, there would be no need to allow gays to marry. I really don't care, one way or the other. Most gays and lesbos are doing alright for themselves, financially, with two incomes and , for the most part, no children. They can certainly afford, as a group, to bankroll their organizations to fight for the right to marry , without my contribution.I do wish them well in their endevors. I will note, that throughout American history, whether the fight was for getting the vote for women or civil rights, the fight was long and obtained over decades.