Anonymous wrote:why can't a civil union get you all of those things if the law said so?

It could, but marriage has so many perks that the only way to be sure you don't miss any would be to say in the law "A civil union is the same as marriage, but to keep the religious folks happy, we won't call it marriage." Strange language for a law.

By the way, I Googled "perfect marriage" and along with other things, got

Bioinformatics - The Perfect Marriage of Computer Science & Medicine
'Bride Wars' is the perfect marriage of cast, project
The Perfect Marriage Of Online & Offline Business: The Domainer

If science and medicine can be married, or cast and project, or online and offline business, why not Bob and Jack? We use the word "marriage" for any joining of two things, not just for "Holy Matrimony". The Maryland bill clearly said churches keep the right to decide what they consider holy, so what's the problem?

I'm not trying to disparage you or your right to your religious beliefs; just trying to get you to accept the right of others to adapt our ever-changing language a bit in order to live their lives as we live ours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions? Do they get you inheritance rights? The right to have spousal health coverage under your partner's health plan? Do they count for tax purposes? Or custody issues? Or owning property as tenants by the entirety? Do they get you pension benefits? Social Security? Family sick leave at work?

I don't think so. To argue that civil unions are "good enough" is disingenous.

*disingenuous.

why can't a civil union get you all of those things if the law said so?

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions? Do they get you inheritance rights? The right to have spousal health coverage under your partner's health plan? Do they count for tax purposes? Or custody issues? Or owning property as tenants by the entirety? Do they get you pension benefits? Social Security? Family sick leave at work?

I don't think so. To argue that civil unions are "good enough" is disingenous.

*disingenuous.

Civil unions? Do they get you inheritance rights? The right to have spousal health coverage under your partner's health plan? Do they count for tax purposes? Or custody issues? Or owning property as tenants by the entirety? Do they get you pension benefits? Social Security? Family sick leave at work?

I don't think so. To argue that civil unions are "good enough" is disingenous.

Anonymous wrote:in order of importance:

1. because we consider marriage to be a religious sacrament with traditions going back thousands of years.

2. because once you chance the definition of marriage, you open up very plausible arguments for polygamy.

3. because we consider the traditional family to be society's ideal.

how doesn't the civil union get you where you need to be? same rights as a spouse. just don't call it "marriage".

1. But this brings us back to the question of where we get the right to impose our religious beliefs on others, and also the fact that traditionally marriage was many other things, including a passing of a woman from one family to another to cement a business or political arrangement.

2. Aside from the fact that polygamy has a long tradition, which you were enthusiastic about in 1, it has never been same sex, so we'd be moving away from it. And indeed, we would be encouraging gays to be more monogamous and less polygamous.

3. It may be the ideal, but we know damn well that divorce and out of wedlock birth are rampant. If the law only recognized ideals, we'd have no police because honesty and charity are "society's ideal".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sad and disappointed that the bill did not pass today. Issues like this are going to split the dems if they are not careful. Gay donors in MD are angry right now.

If it didn't pass in CA, why would you think it would pass in MD? I think Gay partners should have the same rights as a married couple but I do not think it should be marriage. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders and, apparently, a lot of other people feel this way.

Oh come on! Even Laura Bush is more progressive than you. What difference could gay marriage possibly make to heterosexuals anyway? I just don't get it.

PP- then everyone's civil ceremony gets to be a "union" and each religion can deal with the issue as it sees fit, but no more state or federal discrimination. Otherwise you have separate but equal, which as we know is neither.

in order of importance:

1. because we consider marriage to be a religious sacrament with traditions going back thousands of years.

2. because once you chance the definition of marriage, you open up very plausible arguments for polygamy.

3. because we consider the traditional family to be society's ideal.

how doesn't the civil union get you where you need to be? same rights as a spouse. just don't call it "marriage".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sad and disappointed that the bill did not pass today. Issues like this are going to split the dems if they are not careful. Gay donors in MD are angry right now.

If it didn't pass in CA, why would you think it would pass in MD? I think Gay partners should have the same rights as a married couple but I do not think it should be marriage. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders and, apparently, a lot of other people feel this way.

Ah, I did not think we had anyone on here to explain that to me. I agree to the extent that I, a man, married a woman (two in fact, but not at the same time). But since I did not want anyone else telling me whom to marry, I figure I should not be telling them. Can you explain why you feel that your idea of marriage, even though shared by many others, should control the lives of those who have different ideas? This is basically a question someone raised in another thread, and I am really hoping for a serious answer, so I ask that those on my side of the issue try not to jump on you with nasty responses.

Takoma

Marriage is whatever the law defines. Right now it's two people of opposite sexes, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I hope the MGA wises up next year.

Great. So Charlie Sheen and Brittany Spears should have the right, but I shouldn't even though I am in multiple decade monomagous relationship with a bunch of kids, spending my time at PTA, chaperoning teen dances at school, volunteering at fundraisers, chauffering kids to sporting events and helping my kids with homework. Yep, makes sense to me that people who have no respect for the institution of marriage should have that right but others who do should be denied.

marriage is man and woman. i'm ok with civil unions for homosexuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sad and disappointed that the bill did not pass today. Issues like this are going to split the dems if they are not careful. Gay donors in MD are angry right now.

If it didn't pass in CA, why would you think it would pass in MD? I think Gay partners should have the same rights as a married couple but I do not think it should be marriage. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders and, apparently, a lot of other people feel this way.

You're a hypocrite, if this is what you believe. If they had the same rights as a married couple, then they would be married.

I'm really about this, too, OP. I just read the article in WaPo about Tiffani Allston's change of heart last week. I found her explanation for her vote pretty appalling. She said that in her heart she believes that gays should be allowed to marry but that many of her constituents disagree. I wonder in what other circumstances she believes that representatives should vote to deny civil rights in order to properly reflect their constituents' bigotry.

Anonymous wrote:I am sad and disappointed that the bill did not pass today. Issues like this are going to split the dems if they are not careful. Gay donors in MD are angry right now.

If it didn't pass in CA, why would you think it would pass in MD? I think Gay partners should have the same rights as a married couple but I do not think it should be marriage. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders and, apparently, a lot of other people feel this way.

I am sad and disappointed that the bill did not pass today. Issues like this are going to split the dems if they are not careful. Gay donors in MD are angry right now.