akyron said:
I disagree. I do not care for the smell of curry. If I am enjoying a steak at my table and someone comes over and sits at my table with curry, I will ask them to move or move myself. (This actually happened to me once in Shang-Hai). Personally I would have found another table to begin with if the shoe were on the other foot.
Rather than screaming discrimination and persecution have a seat at another table. It is a big damned restauraunt.
Yeah, that's what the country was founded on. If you don't like the British rule of the colonies and taxation without representation, don't revolt, just leave.
akyron said:
Maybe that is the problem. Not enough personal space left with 6.5 billion peeps milling around. I sort of admire the old days when we were more concerned with where the next meal was coming from than rather than who was having sex with whom. We do not have enough on our minds when interior decorators get paid more than teachers or
US soldiers who are fighting for their lives, your way of life, and your right to pick whatever you like out of the buffet.
Yeah, just think if the politicians would just allow gay marriage, we could have them focus on more important issues. Instead they feel it necessary to pass bills like DOMA, attempt to pass constitutional amendments, and all that jazz.
akyron said:
What is the difference between Civil Unions and marriage? I am not sure of the specifics and I dont feel like researching it right now. Anyone know off the top of their head? If Civil Unions do not accrue comparable benefits to marriage then I may change my mind about the situation to the point where Civil unions acquire more benefits(Even though I do not want to pay for it via taxes).
There are 1049 federal benefits that one gets upon marriage. These are not available to state run civil unions.
As it sits now, Vermont's civil unions bestow
some of the same rights, but things like dissolving the civil union are harder to do than marriage. Anyone can go to Vermont to get married or civilly unioned. As for divorce, that can be dissolved anywhere, for a couple to dissolve their civil union, one of the partners has to live in Vermont for a year.
Of course, there's the portability issue with civil unions, especially since a couple of the amendments passed in the 2004 election disallowed that type of contract to be recognized in the state.
Now, if you're talking about civil unions at a federal level, well, first it would have to trump any state amendments currently voted into power, and then it would have to make sure that all of the 1049 benefits currently proffered would be applicable, then it would have to ensure that all future bills would be inclusive of marriage and civil unions. At that point, wouldn't it be easier to allow same sex marriage.
Right now, there are 3 states which offer same sex unions in one way or another.
Vermont- Allows civil unions currently.
Massachusetts-Allows marriages.
Texas and Kansas-What? Texas? Kansas? Red states? Really? Hehe, yup. Well, kinda. They both have some interesting laws, one is that a person is the sex they are born with. Should a person have sexual reassignment surgery (aka, sex change), they can then marry someone of the same sex they currently are. Example to make it more clear. Victor is born as a boy. Victor decides to become Victoria with a sex change, takes the hormones, grows the breasts, has the penis removed and a new vagina is created in its place. What looks like a woman now with breasts and vagina is still considered a man under Texas law. As such, Victoria can marry a woman.
