Question

[den]

This anti-Gay marriage ban in some US states...

What is the actual wording? Does it specifically say "same sex" or "civil union" ?

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spacefem/288249.html

The wording will vary by state. Civil unions don't give all the rights of marriage, mind you, and who's allowed to have them varies by state, too. In California, state-recognized civil unions are allowed for same-sex partners, and opposite-sex partners only over age 62, when federal benefits are reduced for married people, so folks where shacking up.

If we passed a constitional amendment against same-sex marriage (and it could happen, as plenty of Californians are conservative) lawyers could, and would, assert that civil unions are close enough to marriage to be indistinguishable.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I was wondering, because if they don't specifically mention same-sex civil unions/marriage, and just ban "civil unions," then they're outlawing all forms of civil union including de-facto M/F amd poly unions.

I wonder how many people against Gay Marriage are actually married to their parners.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

I suspect that some people had not thought that through. Not poly people, I imagine, but unmarried mf couples.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

And some of them don't believe unmarried men and women should live together.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but I suspsect (can't prove) that some of those people thought of that very much as a THEM, 'cause, well, THEY'D never want to marry another woman.

I've probably told you how delightfully ironic I find it that the US Government is subsidizing me not to remarry. Really. As the widow of a federal employee, I get health insurance and a pension as long as I do not remarry. If I remarry, but then divorce, I get it back. I can remarry once I'm 57 without losing any benefits.

It's insane.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Yeah. And California offers people over 62 domestic partnership because they were shacking up, as it was too much of a financial blow for them to marry.

That's just wacky.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

In California, legal civil unions are defined. And most Americans I've met don't realize that only 13 of our 50 states even allow de facto partnerships. deyo and I can live together for 334 years and not be "married" unless we do the specific legal paperwork that defines marriage. If we want any rights at all, such as guaranteed hospital visitation, we have to define that in a durable power of attorney document, or living will, and as red_frog mentions, some states disallow those (http://www.livejournal.com/users/dewhitton/537165.html?thread=2856269#t2856269), too.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

(b) No relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be recognized by the state as being entitled to the rights, benefits, privileges and incidents of marriage.

That's part of the legislation that VA passed earlier this year that really hurt, because it was a complete "Fuck you, Jack" that meant not only that you couldn't be married--a point I am willing to concede in favor of civil unions for everyone--but that you couldn't set things up to give yourself any rights that normally come automatically with marriage. That, to sound utterly five years old, is just mean.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

That one excludes all unmarried heterosexual unions too, which is something I wondered about. How many heterosexuals in an unmarried M/F relationship voted against the "Gay Marriage" law without realizing that they were voting against their own non-marriage union.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Right, it does. This is a model that the governor of VA was trying to push through about ten years ago, disallowing first-time home-buyers' benefits for all unmarried couples. The catch is, you can't marry if your partner is of your gender, not even for cynical reasons, and the mf couples can.

[jenny_evergreen]

I hadn't heart how rotten that one was. Ugh. :(

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

The Washington Post carried a story talking about how an openly gay member of the VA legislature addressed the rest of the assembly and asked why it was necessary to remind him AGAIN (VA already had the marriage ban!) that they considered him less than human.

[odiedragon.livejournal.com]

I know at least some of them are "civil union". I heard on the radio that some of them are against any kind of domestic partnership that isn't a marriage.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think we're looking at the first attempt toward re-establishing laws banning cohabitation -- what my parents used to call "living in sin". I'm old enough to remember when living in the same house with your SO "without benefit of marriage" was a huge scandal. Now it's business as usual, and that has been chapping the RRR's ass ever since. This could very well be the initial salvo in trying to roll back the clock in that area, too.

[odiedragon.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that extreme. But it IS an attempt to keep long-time partners of either sexual persuasion from trying to claim benefits and rights.

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that extreme.

Slippery slope, thin end of the wedge, etc. etc.

See this Salon article (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/18/gayohio/index_np.html) for what the religious right are pushing towards. The most notable quote, from Patrick Johnston, a campaigner in favour of the Ohio amendment:

During a question-and-answer period, someone says they'd once heard Johnston call for the execution of gays and lesbians. He vigorously denies the charge. Later, he tells me that the decision to put gays to death is a matter best left up to the states. "If we ever had a nation sufficiently Christian" to make homosexuality illegal, he says, imposing capital punishment for homosexuality would be a subject for "an in-house debate. There were capital crimes in the Bible, and that would be something debated."

[weibchenwolf.livejournal.com]

I do have to wonder which part of "Thou shalt not kill" some Fundamentalist Christians have problems with. Seems pretty clear to me.

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

Hate to defend the indefensible, but...

"Thou shalt not kill" is more correctly translated as "thou shalt not murder". Judicial punishment = not murder.

Remember the commandments are from the Old Testament, not the peace & love second edition.

(speaking here as an anti-death penalty queerboy, btw)

[weibchenwolf.livejournal.com]

I do have to wonder which part of "Thou shalt not kill" some Fundamentalist Christians have problems with. Seems pretty clear to me.

[arcturax.livejournal.com]

Here in Ohio it specifically defines marriage as "Between a man and a woman".

I suppose if one got a sex change, they could get around it that way, but well, that's kinda extreme unless they really wanted one. Perhaps if they found another way to be declared a woman. Could be an interesting loophole.

But just as bad, the Ohio law strips away the rights of unmarried couples, heterosexual or not from getting any joint benefits or loans or property. This bill has smashed the dreams of hundreds of thousands and not just homosexuals. Howevert he courts will be weighing in on this in the near future as the first lawsuits have already been filed.

[isolt.livejournal.com]

Got here via mactavish.

The Michigan constitutional ban says something along the lines of "the union of a man and a woman in marriage will be the only union recognized as marriage or any similar union for any purpose." That pretty explicitly does away with civil unions and domestic partnerships for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

The domestic partner status offered by my city has almost assuredly vanished into smoke. However, my boyfriend and I will not be getting married, as that feels like giving up. We'll certainly be having powers of attorney written up, though.

It's worth noting that Michigan still has a law on the books defining the cohabitation of unmarried adults as a misdemeanor, with a $1000 fine. This is prosecuted about as often as the sodomy laws were, which is to say never, but it's there.

[fenris-lorsrai.livejournal.com]

Just as a counterpoint, we're not all bigoted fruitcakes! Connecticut's lawmakers got smart and avoided the whole issue. They knew as soon as the words "gay rights" or "gay marriage" were used, the reilgious fruitcakes would crawl out of their holes and hold up the whole process. So they passed through a whole bunch of laws, in ones and twos, that basically extend all the rights of civil unions/marriage to gays here without actually putting it in that format. Gay couples have to fill out a lot more paperwork to get them all than they would if they could just apply for a marriage certificate, but they actually GET them this way.

Connecticut's laws are sufficiently good on that count that gay friends of mine briefly looked at going to Massachusetts to be married (it's about a two hour drive, so not far at all) and decided that it really wouldn't gain them any significant benefits they didn't already have here.

The state government also offers health and retirement benefits to the same sex partners of their employees, and their children. We also passed a state law preventing descrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status.

Now hopefully this rubs off on the insurance industry. Most of the major health care insurance companies have their headquarters in the state capital, a stone's throw from the legislature. Since they sit in a state that says they can't deny benefits to gay couples, they get used to it and offer it as an option to corporate clients in other states. I know some large companies DO offer it, they're just very quiet about it because people may boycot them over it. Stupid, but true.

[berin.livejournal.com]

It depends on the state. Ohio, for example, explicitly bans both.