PDA

View Full Version : What Is Civil Marriage?


Leslie
07-15-2008, 06:21 AM
I wanted to post this info to dispel some of the myths put forth by other groups who want to dictate the meaning of marriage.

"Civil Marriage" is a descriptive term that helps to illustrate that equal civil rights is the agenda - not changing religious beliefs.


Why do people need to talk about civil marriage equality?

The country is grappling with this issue. We must educate people on the rights that come with civil marriage, and the difference between civil and religious marriage, and we must ensure that fairness is always a part of the discussion.

Majority support does not make something right or wrong. In 1983, 16 years after the Supreme Court struck down anti-interracial marriage laws in Loving v. Virginia, only 43 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In 1948, 19 years before the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, the California Supreme Court ruled on an interracial case, Perez v. Lippold, with a four justice majority affirming the right of interracial marriages. The majority opinion said that each person seeking a license to marry the "wrong" kind of person, "finds himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."

The decision in Perez marked the beginning of the end of race discrimination in marriage -- before legislators in most states were willing to stand against discrimination, and before the polls showed the public's acceptance of equality in marriage or other civil rights. Some state had to show leadership, and the court was properly asked to provide it through a direct and timely challenge to existing discrimination. History has upheld that decision, and we now view those judges as civil rights heroes.

Aren't civil unions the same thing?

Civil unions and domestic partnership are important steps to full marriage equality for GLBT couples - but they ultimately support the notion that GLBT couples are separate and unequal from other Americans, which is wrong. Separate is not equal. Furthermore, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and do not confer the more than 1,000 rights and benefits that the federal government grants to married couples.

Isn't marriage a religious institution?

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.
Many religions and faith-based traditions recognize and welcome same-sex couples and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people into their congregations - others do not. Religious institutions will always be able to define marriage as they see fit, however the state should treat all people and all families equally under the law.

If same-sex couples are allowed to get married, wouldn't that harm the institution of marriage?

Recognizing that GLBT couples require the same tools to care for and protect each other and their families does not undermine or harm marriage rights of heterosexual couples. How can GLBT couples and families receiving the rights and responsibilities of marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

Shouldn't groups that support family values, value all families? Americans who support family values should support strengthening all American families.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-interracial marriage laws in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, many of the arguments against the decision - that it would lead to widespread polygamy, bigamy, and a moral breakdown of the country - are the same arguments we hear today against legalizing civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Why do gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people want to get married?

Growing up, each of us is taught that one day finding a soulmate and building a life together is an integral part of the American dream, and GLBT people share in that dream. Gay and lesbian couples share their lives, their loves, and their hearts just like any other couple does.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples are patriotic, hard-working citizens who pay their taxes and support their country the same as any other American. GLBT couples love each other just as deeply and their commitment to one another is just as resolute as it is for heterosexual couples.
The 2000 Census showed that same-sex couples are living in nearly every county in this country. Estimates from the Census and other studies show that there are at least 1 million children in America being raised by GLBT parents. All children deserve the stability and protections that come from having two parents who are legally bonded by marriage. Discriminating against children is wrong.

Marriage is a major building block for strong families and communities. Denying marriage to GLBT couples weakens GLBT couples and families.
Why is civil marriage important?

Through civil marriage, couples are granted more than 1,000 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities under law - along with hundreds of state level rights and protections. The government uses the legal recognition of civil marriage to grant these rights, which include Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights and the ability to inherit a spouse's property without being taxed.

Many of the rights and benefits that accompany civil marriage are recently established rights, not age-old traditions. For example, Social Security was created in 1935. Survivor's insurance was added in 1939. Family and medical leave didn't come into existence until the '90s.

HumanRightsCampaign (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/talking.html)



"An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender- does not
constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008

Leslie
07-15-2008, 06:32 AM
Here's the info on those 1,000+ rights, benefits and protections enjoyed by married heterosexuals:

Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one’s will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.

As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections. In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

* legal recognition of the couple’s commitment to and responsibility for one another;
* legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
* legal recognition of a child’s relationship to both parents;
* joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
* second-parent adoption (in most states);
* foster parenting (in some states);
* eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
* ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
* protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
* automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one’s partner;
* access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
* access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
* ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
* ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
* recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;
* ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one’s partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
* ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
* recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child’s education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
* ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
* access to spousal benefits of worker’s compensation;
* ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
* privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
* immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
* protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
* access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
* visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
* children’s rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
* legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
* domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
* automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* children’s right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
* surviving parent’s right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
* exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
* automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
* access to deceased partner’s veteran’s benefits;
* ability to roll deceased partner’s 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
* right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349)

heyjude
07-15-2008, 02:43 PM
The difference is important. I think that denying marriage to people is wrong, and that some day a SC will agree. Just as they did with race. However, personally, I'd rather get rid of the laws granting benefits to people for marrying. They discriminate against people who are single.

Most of the laws cited above are to protect people in a partnership, but there are many benefits that married people enjoy that are in existence because society wants to encourage people to marry. Many of those types of laws discriminate against single people and should be scrapped.

1Samuel8
07-23-2008, 06:42 PM
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Making marriage an issue of the state is the only problem.



Marriage is not a civil right. If nobody wants to marry you, how the hell is marriage a right????????
Marriage is just an agreement between people and just like any other agreement, the government is not the only agent who can (or should for that matter) enforce it.

Deadshot
07-23-2008, 06:44 PM
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Making marriage an issue of the state is the only problem.

that will never happen because it is the State that enforces the laws. Look at Leslie's 2nd post, those things are protected by the only entity that CAN protect them...the State.

Osborn F. Enready
07-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Deadshot, any right can be protected by the state, and marriage rights are no different regardless of the state role in marriage if the infractions are truly RIGHTS infractions.

There are some things above that are not rights infractions.... but there are examples of that everywhere in law now since the two parties no longer base legislation on the onus of protecting rights, in fact, often passing legislation that infringes rights directly.

Pookie
07-24-2008, 05:02 AM
i understand all that stuff. My question is, what would it harm us, who keep our bedroom to ourselves, and others should do the same.
Take care of your own stuff, and leave others' bedrooms to them.
Those who are secure and stable in their own relationships need not worry themselves about others' relationships.
Purrs,
Pookie

william the wierd
07-25-2008, 12:37 AM
What I find strange is that I get targeted for sugardaddy ads which tells me several things:

A) mom puts my name on her CDs and I bonds because she trusts me. I do not have six figures of cash and negotiable securities that I am at liberty to spend. My wife's retirement accounts have a big set aside for her daughter by a previous marriage and the advertisers either didn't do due diligence or they are being informed by other data.
B) The latter would appear to the case.
C) Given Floridian law I would need to be crazy or very well compensated to remarry.
D) That Gail's prescription bills have been tracked is possible and that would give her a 5-10 year life expectancy at best.
E) A mistress would be the optimal strategy for me if I found it difficult to find a highly paid professional in the import market.

All of the above also applies to gays, polygamists or even a boy and his dog. Between Florida's pre-nup and divorce laws marriage is severely discouraged in this state and that is spreading.

Leslie
07-25-2008, 12:43 AM
What I find strange is that I get targeted for sugardaddy ads which tells me several things:

A) mom puts my name on her CDs and I bonds because she trusts me. I do not have six figures of cash and negotiable securities that I am at liberty to spend. My wife's retirement accounts have a big set aside for her daughter by a previous marriage and the advertisers didn't do due diligence. The house is worth much less than tax assessment values. I have been married for over 30 years and have no current use for a mistress. If I did I would not find it difficult to line one up without using an online service.
B) Given Floridian law I would need to be crazy or very well compensated to remarry if Gail kicks the bucket, which given her health problems may be the reason for the ads.

All of the above also applies to gays, polygamists or even a boy and his dog. Between Florida's pre-nup and divorce laws marriage is severely discouraged in this state and that is spreading.

You probably could start a thread for stories like yours. :lmao:

Leslie
07-25-2008, 12:46 AM
"[T]here was a time... when black people in this country couldn't marry the person of their choice either. That's why when I am asked, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' my answer is always, 'Of course they are.'"
— Julian Bond, November 20, 2005

1Samuel8
07-27-2008, 04:49 AM
i understand all that stuff. My question is, what would it harm us, who keep our bedroom to ourselves, and others should do the same.
Take care of your own stuff, and leave others' bedrooms to them. It harms people through their taxes.

Think of all the people who do not get married. Why should they fund a bloated legal system to deal with marriage bureaucracy? At the very least, civil marriage is unfair to them!

Leslie
07-30-2008, 02:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ise-NLtw1jI