Naming The Inevitability of Same-Sex CUDPs

[TheNextEra]

The right wing insanity.

PC LIBBs want to control our thoughts and language. We cant use the N word.

Marriage is our word we want a law that you can't use it.

When did marriage become "your"'word? I'm married, and don't care if gays want to use marriage. Marriage is not "your" word.

 

[Tucker Case]

I didn't vote because there was no "It's none of my ****ing business what they want call their relationship" option.

The state should call it by whatever name the people involved in the relationships wish them to be called by.

 

[Tucker Case]

When did marriage become "your"'word? I'm married, and don't care if gays want to use marriage. Marriage is not "your" word.

He was being facetious.

 

[roguenuke]

Marriage.

And considering (recent) history has shown us that same sex civil unions/domestic partnerships just turn into or go to marriages, then it is a waste of time and money for the inbetween union.

Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vermont had civil unions for same sex couples since 2000, then in 2009 just allowed same sex couples to marry. Connecticut had civil unions for same sex couples in 2005, then went to allowing same sex couples to marry (whether by court order or not, it happened). Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire all had the same thing happen.

New Jersey has same sex civil unions and yet there is a strong likelihood that they will see same sex marriage soon. The only obstacle at the moment is Christi. Illinois has civil unions and yet there is still strong support for same sex marriage and it could very likely pass later this year or early next year. Hawaii is pushing to overturn its laws preventing marriage despite not only having civil unions for same sex couples since last year, but also having "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" available since the 1990s (they were afterall the catalyst for DOMA).

Other states that now have same sex marriage either had their own domestic partnership laws open to same sex couples or recognized other states' partnerships, yet they went to marriage.

Only "marriage" gives federal recognition. And federal recognition is required for the majority of benefits and rights that come with marriage. There is no major push on the federal level to grant spousal benefits/recognition for anything other than marriage so it is not worth it to go for anything other than marriage. And not granting marriage leaves us in a legal nightmare for as long as it continues.

On a personal level, they are married. I see no difference in their marriages and my own except sexes/genders, and that has nothing to do with either the reasons a couple normally wants to get married or how marriage works legally for any couple.

 

[Ontologuy]

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS "marriage" group. ...

Correction.

"29" percent should be "33" percent -- I read from the wrong poll year.

 

[Ontologuy]

Marriage.

And considering (recent) history has shown us that same sex civil unions/domestic partnerships just turn into or go to marriages, then it is a waste of time and money for the inbetween union.

Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vermont had civil unions for same sex couples since 2000, then in 2009 just allowed same sex couples to marry. Connecticut had civil unions for same sex couples in 2005, then went to allowing same sex couples to marry (whether by court order or not, it happened). Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire all had the same thing happen.

New Jersey has same sex civil unions and yet there is a strong likelihood that they will see same sex marriage soon. The only obstacle at the moment is Christi. Illinois has civil unions and yet there is still strong support for same sex marriage and it could very likely pass later this year or early next year. Hawaii is pushing to overturn its laws preventing marriage despite not only having civil unions for same sex couples since last year, but also having "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" available since the 1990s (they were afterall the catalyst for DOMA).

Other states that now have same sex marriage either had their own domestic partnership laws open to same sex couples or recognized other states' partnerships, yet they went to marriage.

Only "marriage" gives federal recognition. And federal recognition is required for the majority of benefits and rights that come with marriage. There is no major push on the federal level to grant spousal benefits/recognition for anything other than marriage so it is not worth it to go for anything other than marriage. And not granting marriage leaves us in a legal nightmare for as long as it continues.

On a personal level, they are married. I see no difference in their marriages and my own except sexes/genders, and that has nothing to do with either the reasons a couple normally wants to get married or how marriage works legally for any couple.

As the 5-4 SCOTUS decision striking down the relevant clause in DOMA just proved, the fed is subject to the state on this one.

If states pass recognition statutes calling SS CRM CUDPs something other than marriage -- like, say, "homarriage", the federal both with regard to respect of the rights and powers default-granted to the states and in the spirit of the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section I of the U.S. Constitution must and will follow suit and change IRS etc. references of "married" to "married/homarried" or whatever.

The federal issue you mention is a mere nothing, a roadblock contrivance you've manufactured for your ideological agenda, nothing more.

And the liberal-run erroneous "equal rights" judgment in those states forcing "marriage" on SS CRM CUDPS is simply an aberration that will not reflect the great majority of states that are run by centrists, the great majority in America, or conservatives.

 

[roguenuke]

As the 5-4 SCOTUS decision striking down the relevant clause in DOMA just proved, the fed is subject to the state on this one.

If states pass recognition statutes calling SS CRM CUDPs something other than marriage -- like, say, "homarriage", the federal both with regard to respect of the rights and powers default-granted to the states and in the spirit of the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section I of the U.S. Constitution must and will follow suit and change IRS etc. references of "married" to "married/homarried" or whatever.

The federal issue you mention is a mere nothing, a roadblock contrivance you've manufactured for your ideological agenda, nothing more.

And the liberal-run erroneous "equal rights" judgment in those states forcing "marriage" on SS CRM CUDPS is simply an aberration that will not reflect the great majority of states that are run by centrists, the great majority in America, or conservatives.

And it has already been put out that only marriages will be recognized under federal laws. Only those couples in legal marriages will get federal benefits, not those in civil unions or domestic partnerships, even in those states where that is all that is available.

 

[Ontologuy]

And it has already been put out that only marriages will be recognized under federal laws. Only those couples in legal marriages will get federal benefits, not those in civil unions or domestic partnerships, even in those states where that is all that is available.

Please cite documentation validation on your statement here.

Regardless, you speak as if such is cast in cement. It's not. As I just presented to you, the states rule on this one, and when some states begin to pass "homarriage" CRM CUDPs, the federal must support it.

To say that "only marriages will be recognized" is to omit "because that's the only CRM CUDPs currently in existence", thus rendering your statement meaningless.

States with constitutional provisions that "a marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" will soon begin to create "homarriage" CRM CUDPs.

When that happens, the fed is constitutionally mandated to support it.

The federal government can treat state "homarriages" for recognition purposes "like a marriage" even though they aren't a marriage without any extensive rewrite of federal statutes, as the relevant recognition by government and private enterprise is the same.

Again, you're setting up a "cast in cement can never ever change" fallacy simply, perhaps, because some liberal government official made an erronoues statement, that, and, of course, because it suits your ideological agenda, obviously.

Also, keep in mind that marriage is a civil union domestic partnership in the federal government's eyes, so you're misstating reality here when you say CUDPs will not get "marriage" recognition, as marriage is a CUDP.

 

[roguenuke]

Please cite documentation validation on your statement here.

Regardless, you speak as if such is cast in cement. It's not. As I just presented to you, the states rule on this one, and when some states begin to pass "homarriage" CRM CUDPs, the federal must support it.

To say that "only marriages will be recognized" is to omit "because that's the only CRM CUDPs currently in existence", thus rendering your statement meaningless.

States with constitutional provisions that "a marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" will soon begin to create "homarriage" CRM CUDPs.

When that happens, the fed is constitutionally mandated to support it.

The federal government can treat state "homarriages" for recognition purposes "like a marriage" even though they aren't a marriage without any extensive rewrite of federal statutes, as the relevant recognition by government and private enterprise is the same.

Again, you're setting up a "cast in cement can never ever change" fallacy simply, perhaps, because some liberal government official made an erronoues statement, that, and, of course, because it suits your ideological agenda, obviously.

Also, keep in mind that marriage is a civil union domestic partnership in the federal government's eyes, so you're misstating reality here when you say CUDPs will not get "marriage" recognition, as marriage is a CUDP.

As of right now, and in the near future, there is no reason to believe that other forms of partnerships will be recognized because they are not recognized for opposite sex couples.

 

[Gaius46]

The same word should be used for both since legally they would be the same thing.

 

[Ontologuy]

As of right now, and in the near future, there is no reason to believe that other forms of partnerships will be recognized because they are not recognized for opposite sex couples.

Again, "there is no reason ..." is simply your ideologically manifested opinion.

Clearly you apparently have no legislative substantiation for your opinion ..

.. But if you do, please, as I requested previously, cite the federal government statute documentation that validates your point.

 

[roguenuke]

Again, "there is no reason ..." is simply your ideologically manifested opinion.

Clearly you apparently have no legislative substantiation for your opinion ..

.. But if you do, please, as I requested previously, cite the federal government statute documentation that validates your point.

The fact that civil unions are not and never have been recognized by the federal government.

 

[Ontologuy]

The fact that civil unions are not and never have been recognized by the federal government.

... Is, of course, meaningless.

But, more importantly, marriages are civil unions: civil union domestic partnerships.

Thus your statement is also erroneous.

Again, please cite federal statute documentation for your opinion.

 

[captainawesome]

:sigh:

As I'm sure you know, when people are asked only about whether SS couples should be allowed to "marry", you're going to get a different answer than when you give the public more information and a real and legitimate choice.

Here's that choice, as reflected in this thread's poll questions from a major participation poll:

Here's a link of relevant polled questions: On Same-Sex Relationships.

"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

.............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

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

Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your 53 percentage for the oxymoronic SS "marriage" to 37 percent!

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS "marriage" group.

Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized.

Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

Clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.

Now if you want to point out that from 2004 to half way through 2012 that support for the oxymoronic SS "marriage" has increased from 20 to 37%, be my guest.

Reality remains that 63% remain opposed to the oxymoronic SS "marriage" .. and no matter how often the media or SS activists brainwash the public via chanting the oxymoronic mantra "same-sex marriage", despite what these liberal-slanted polls reveal, the great majority, centrists, plus conservatives too, will continue to be opposed to the oxymoronic SS "marriage".

Again, you have nothing but wishful ideology .. and even if you trot out a small-sample poll that is even more liberally slanted in a failed attempt to override this poll I provided which was corroborated throughout the polls in the link .. well, again, you'll only be attempting to corrupt reality.

By the way .. didn't you post earlier somewhere that you work with homosexuals, that you counsel them or something?

Is it not possible that your viewpoint here could be a little biasedly clouded?

I think that's highly possible.

Those that want to deny equality and happiness to others are tyrants and bigots.

 

[Hard Truth]

If the bigots get their way on naming SSM they may as well be honest.

Real Marriage vs Sham Faggot marriage

or

First class marriage vs.Second Class Marriage

 

[roguenuke]

... Is, of course, meaningless.

But, more importantly, marriages are civil unions: civil union domestic partnerships.

Thus your statement is also erroneous.

Again, please cite federal statute documentation for your opinion.

Then there would be no logical reason to have two separate forms/names for the same thing, someone is going to sue, and they will all be forced to simply go to "marriage".

But, there are some places that want a lower level of state recognition of marriage, a civil union or domestic partnership, that isn't marriage, and has nothing to do with whether a couple is same sex or opposite sex. These should still be available to those who want them in places that already have them without having to change everything around just because some don't know how to share something they don't even legitimately own.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

:sigh:

As I'm sure you know, when people are asked only about whether SS couples should be allowed to "marry", you're going to get a different answer than when you give the public more information and a real and legitimate choice.

Here's that choice, as reflected in this thread's poll questions from a major participation poll:

Here's a link of relevant polled questions: On Same-Sex Relationships.

"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

.............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

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

Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your 53 percentage for the oxymoronic SS "marriage" to 37 percent!

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS "marriage" group.

Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized.

Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

Clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.

Now if you want to point out that from 2004 to half way through 2012 that support for the oxymoronic SS "marriage" has increased from 20 to 37%, be my guest.

Reality remains that 63% remain opposed to the oxymoronic SS "marriage" .. and no matter how often the media or SS activists brainwash the public via chanting the oxymoronic mantra "same-sex marriage", despite what these liberal-slanted polls reveal, the great majority, centrists, plus conservatives too, will continue to be opposed to the oxymoronic SS "marriage".

Again, you have nothing but wishful ideology .. and even if you trot out a small-sample poll that is even more liberally slanted in a failed attempt to override this poll I provided which was corroborated throughout the polls in the link .. well, again, you'll only be attempting to corrupt reality.

By the way .. didn't you post earlier somewhere that you work with homosexuals, that you counsel them or something?

Is it not possible that your viewpoint here could be a little biasedly clouded?

I think that's highly possible.

1) You are doing what you did in the other thread: distorting the data.
2) You have responded to NONE of my challenges to prove your position... therefore, I will ask again:

You claimed that there has not been a massive change in societal support for SSM. I provided a link proving this to be inaccurate. Provide a link disputing my claim. 53% is the number that you are looking at disputing... not 37% That is an entirely different issue, based on different data, has no relationship to the 27% I cited, and one which you presented for a specific thesis and one which you were already refuted upon... by yourself.

You claimed... as you did again above that conservatives tend to participate less in these polls. Prove this with links to your sources. If you cannot, admit you made this up.

Go ahead, Ontologuy. Provide the sources for your claims.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Please cite documentation validation on your statement here.

Regardless, you speak as if such is cast in cement. It's not. As I just presented to you, the states rule on this one, and when some states begin to pass "homarriage" CRM CUDPs, the federal must support it.

To say that "only marriages will be recognized" is to omit "because that's the only CRM CUDPs currently in existence", thus rendering your statement meaningless.

States with constitutional provisions that "a marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" will soon begin to create "homarriage" CRM CUDPs.

When that happens, the fed is constitutionally mandated to support it.

The federal government can treat state "homarriages" for recognition purposes "like a marriage" even though they aren't a marriage without any extensive rewrite of federal statutes, as the relevant recognition by government and private enterprise is the same.

Again, you're setting up a "cast in cement can never ever change" fallacy simply, perhaps, because some liberal government official made an erronoues statement, that, and, of course, because it suits your ideological agenda, obviously.

Also, keep in mind that marriage is a civil union domestic partnership in the federal government's eyes, so you're misstating reality here when you say CUDPs will not get "marriage" recognition, as marriage is a CUDP.

I just noticed that YOU are asking for documentation... something that I have repeatedly asked from you and something that you have refused to provide. Further, I noticed this assertion:

"States with constitutional provisions that "a marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" will soon begin to create "homarriage" CRM CUDPs."

Please provide documentation that supports this assertion.

 

[joko104]

The very concept of "free speech" does not allow the government to ban usage of certain words to limit the context of their usage.

 

[captainawesome]

The very concept of "free speech" does not allow the government to ban usage of certain words to limit the context of their usage.

right wingers only believe in free speech when its them calling people nigger or faggot.