For My Buddy Grey One More Time - Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

[adios]

Is grey describing a civil union when he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party supports legal agreements that provide equal rights as married couples. So does the public by around 53-40 (as per the latest Pew poll).

[/ QUOTE ]

How do gay marriages differ from civil unions?

[tolbiny]

They use the term "marriage".

[etgryphon]

it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

The problem stems from the fact that Vermont starts issue marriage certs to same sex couples and then they move to texas, now all Texas laws that govern marriage must be applied to this couple whether the general populace wants to provide these marriage services to a same sex couple becuase of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If however we create these things called Civil Unions for same-sex couples, each state can define what benefits that Civil Unions can be afforded. States like California and Vermont then can define a civil union to be the same as a marriage and treat their laws accordingly where another state like Texas can limit the benefits as they see fit for Civil Unions.

The problem with defining it a Marriage as as opposed to Civil Union is that one state and a minority of country can change all the laws of the land whether the people want it or not. It circumvents the whole democratic process.

-Gryph

[adios]

Thanks for the reply. Lawyers who've responded on this forum have offered differing views on the issues you bring up in your post btw.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

The problem stems from the fact that Vermont starts issue marriage certs to same sex couples and then they move to texas, now all Texas laws that govern marriage must be applied to this couple whether the general populace wants to provide these marriage services to a same sex couple becuase of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If however we create these things called Civil Unions for same-sex couples, each state can define what benefits that Civil Unions can be afforded. States like California and Vermont then can define a civil union to be the same as a marriage and treat their laws accordingly where another state like Texas can limit the benefits as they see fit for Civil Unions.

The problem with defining it a Marriage as as opposed to Civil Union is that one state and a minority of country can change all the laws of the land whether the people want it or not. It circumvents the whole democratic process.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if the religious right ever utters the phrase "and then, we get screwed by the Constitution." Damn that Equal Protection thing...it's almost like we're all equal in terms of rights for each state...lol.

In all seriousness, the sad part about this whole gay marriage thing is that, in the minds of its opponents, to allow legal gay marriage would set things in motion to, one day, have a Baptist preacher marrying two men in the church, directly beneath the cross. Otherwise, I really don't know if you'd get such a violent reaction from these folks.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply. Lawyers who've responded on this forum have offered differing views on the issues you bring up in your post btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only other argument is that under equal protection clause we are treating same sex couples unfairly because they can't get married to the person that they love and that causes the conflict. It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument. I'm not equating them as the same I'm just saying that one can use the smae logic.

Curious, what you understand is the opposing view from these lawyers?

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]


I wonder if the religious right ever utters the phrase "and then, we get screwed by the Constitution." Damn that Equal Protection thing...it's almost like we're all equal in terms of rights for each state...lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they usually just curse the left for using the judiciary to legislate law and reinterpret the Constitution as they see fit.

[ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, the sad part about this whole gay marriage thing is that, in the minds of its opponents, to allow legal gay marriage would set things in motion to, one day, have a Baptist preacher marrying two men in the church, directly beneath the cross. Otherwise, I really don't know if you'd get such a violent reaction from these folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

Having one state change the rules is tyrany of the minority which has been the case for far too long.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horses and children aren't capable of legally consenting. Polygamy is probably ‘slippier’, as are incestuous relationships.

Frankly, if someone wants to marry a few women, or their kinfolk, I'm more or less willing to let them have at it.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they usually just curse the left for using the judiciary to legislate law and reinterpret the Constitution as they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I was really just having a little fun. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

Having one state change the rules is tyrany of the minority which has been the case for far too long.


[/ QUOTE ] Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really... The answer is c) The judiciary does not have authority to define what marriage is only the legislature. I am against it on moral and legal grounds but I give more weight to it on legal grounds because of the implications to democracy. I don't really care if same-sex people are in love and do what ever it is that they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. When it begins to take a legal stance that is against democracy then i have a problem.

-Gryph