Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Another State (NJ) Approves Civil Unions

  1. #1
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185

    Another State (NJ) Approves Civil Unions

    Whatchathink?

    With the very biblical name (if that's the way it translates correctly into English) of 'marriage' and all it blessedness despite the majority of marriages winds up in divorce. the Gays are settling in on Civil Unions and it's gaining in favor throughout the country. No problem with the marriage word.

    While the Gays do not get the holy union but do get the equal benefits, I think it is a step in the right direction.

    Whaatchathink?

    Joe

  2. #2
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    majority of marriages winds up in divorce
    Not true. Divorce rate is 49% - higher in southern states, lower in northern. Ironically, the only state in the nation with legal gay marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country - 2.5% in 2002 vs the national average of 5.2 (highest rate is 7.1 in Nevada, followed by 6.2 in Arkansas). Of the major cities, Boston's rate of 1.7 is second lowest (the lowest is in Toledo, OH). Of course, the reason has little to do with gay marriage, rather it's a combination of education and relatively low poverty, but it's still ironic.

    Some interesting statistics here - http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/ar...icle13573.html.
    Last edited by Ptichka; 02-20-2007 at 09:40 AM.

  3. #3
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka View Post
    ...highest rate is 7.1 in Nevada...
    I wonder if this is Nevada residents or if it counts all the people who fly to Las Vegas to get a divorce?

  4. #4
    On Edge Piel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Bayfield, WI
    Posts
    3,973
    I think that civil unions are fine and don't mind if they are called marriages. I think it is important that people who are in a committed relationship or who live together as a family unit have all of the benefits that are given those in traditional marriages. My exsister inlaw and her partner had a union ceremony last fall but had to go to Vermont for it. I twould have been nice if they could have had it at home surrounded by their friends and loved ones.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Albany NY
    Posts
    778
    About time, and I can only hope the rest of the country will eventually follow suit.

    Yana

  6. #6
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    I think it is a step in the right direction.
    ITA

  7. #7
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,198
    I had a conversation last year with a friend of mine who is gay. He said he has no problem with 'civil union' as long as all other 'marriages' not conducted in a religious ceremony are also called civil unions.

    Since marriage is considered a sacrament (if you're religious), I can see his point that if you're not married by a priest, rabbi (or someone of that nature), then it's not a marriage.

  8. #8
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Interesting point, heyang - If Giuliani or Bloomberg wed a couple in accordance with the powers invested in them, is that a marriage in the biblical sense?

    I think a Captain of a ship also has the powers. Am I corect? Looks good for aetheist couples. They get the sanctity of marriage without the religion.

    Joe

  9. #9
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by heyang View Post
    I had a conversation last year with a friend of mine who is gay. He said he has no problem with 'civil union' as long as all other 'marriages' not conducted in a religious ceremony are also called civil unions.

    Since marriage is considered a sacrament (if you're religious), I can see his point that if you're not married by a priest, rabbi (or someone of that nature), then it's not a marriage.
    I can see that also. Personally i am not religious. I also do not believe in marriage or any type of state sanctioned "acceptance" of a relationship. In the UK civil partnerships do not bring the same rights as those given to married couples so to my mind its a half-way house which in and of itself does not do very much.

    Until it is upped to give the couple the same rights as heterosexual couples then its pretty worthless. Even though i personally would not enter into a civil partnership for my own personal reasons, i think they are a good thing to promote equality...that is, if the civil partnership ever does end up being equal to a marriage.

    Ant

  10. #10
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by heyang View Post
    I had a conversation last year with a friend of mine who is gay. He said he has no problem with 'civil union' as long as all other 'marriages' not conducted in a religious ceremony are also called civil
    During a Massachusetts debate, one congressman (from Dorchester, I believe), suggested this. Essentially, the MA supreme court said that there should be fully equal options for homosexual and heterosexual couples. Since a lot of state residents have a problem with the idea of gay marriage, he suggested simply taking the word "marriage" out of the equation. At the time, I thought this was a very reasonable solution. For some reason, though, this suggestion was completely ignored.

  11. #11
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    They tried this in Colorado, it went down in flames.

    The problem is some see the same sex marriages as already having the same rights, they just need to pursue a few more attorneys to ensure the paperwork is filed. It is not automatic they receive the same "legal" rights, but can with some diligence. Not fair.
    A man can not change his name to the woman's if He chooses without going to "extra attorney" sessions too (nothing compared to what same sex partners have to do but as expl.) So many see this as one of those out of the ordinary issues that people should just have to deal with. It is THEIR take that "it is different, it gets treated different."

    The other issues "marriage." What all that automatically comes with it. Is it the word that defines it or the "union." of two people who "join?"
    The law that was attempted in CO was saying that "Marriage" is only between a man and woman, and same sex marriage is a "Union" that garners the exact same rights upon the union.
    Neither side was turning out a good vote on it. Same sex partners want it called Marriage and the "haters" want them not to have rights.

    Personally, I don't see that it is going badly, little steps is the way of the government most of the time. I think a lot of same sex couples are getting impatient - understandable - but have to face facts. It is not going to happen that quickly, but is on course.

  12. #12
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,496
    We have civil unions here in CT. The world did not end.

    I saw some coverage of an American Conservatives convention the other day. One of the items discussed was marriage & gay marriage. To my surprise, one of the big concerns of one of the panellists was the fear that if gays have marriage rights, it's part of them having equal rights in general, and if gays had equal rights in general, then the different churches & organizations could not forbid hiring of gays, Catholic Adoption agencies could not refuse to do adoption by gays and so forth.

    You want to know what's really ironic? Religious marriage for gays is available throughout this country. Many of the United Church of Christ churches (including the one I go to) will marry gay couples, as will the Unitarian/Universalist churches.

    The thing that the anti gay marriage folks want seems to be refusal of human rights & civil rights to gays more than anything to do with marriage.

  13. #13
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    81
    Finally!!! I guess the path to enlightenment comes in very small steps...very .......small....... steps.
    Last edited by twinsissv; 02-25-2007 at 04:42 PM.

  14. #14
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by DORISPULASKI View Post
    To my surprise, one of the big concerns of one of the panellists was the fear that if gays have marriage rights, it's part of them having equal rights in general, and if gays had equal rights in general, then the different churches & organizations could not forbid hiring of gays, Catholic Adoption agencies could not refuse to do adoption by gays and so forth.
    We had that issue in Massachusetts. Catholic charities were for years in the adoption business. Following legalization of gay marriages, state courts said that they couldn't treat gay couples differently than heterosexual ones. Ultimately, Catholic charities got out of adoptions all together. My take on it - this is a sensitive issue, and I think Catholic organizations CAN discriminate against gays - but only as long as they don't take public money. Once they take the goverment's money, they should play by the same rules as governmental organizations.

  15. #15
    Rogue Leader
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB
    Posts
    1,522
    Nice to hear. This is a step in the right direction. I've always found it odd that's it's been such a hot button issue to so many people. Two gay people getting married has no affect on any heterosexual couple's marriage.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •