This is an issue in Britain that is not an issue in this country. The theory that keeps a monarch in power is that he/she is appointed by God. At the titular head of both government and church, all marriages are both civil and religious and are sanctioned as both.

But in this country, marriage is strictly a religious institution. Civil unions are also called marriages, but are actually a form of civil contract. Ministers are empowered by the states to conduct civil unions ("by the power vested in me by the state of ...") and marriages concurrently. Justices of the Peace and others can only perform civil unions.

There is a lot of confusion of the terms marriage and civil union, and most people "married" by a JP consider them selves just as "married" as someone with a $100,000 for4mal church wedding. And legally it is the case.

But the two are not the same thing in this country. That is why the "gay marriage" issue is so bogus and unnecessary. If two gay individuals want to be "married", they must first find a minister who will marry them (and there are a lot.) But the minister is not vested by most states with the power to conduct the concurrent civil union, so legally they are not "married."

We see this much more frequently than we think. Both Catholics and Lutherans, for example have very limited (and sometimes expensive) access to divorce. So most couples who receive civil divorces remain married in the eyes of the church. So when they remarry, they choose a civil union for the remarriage. So this leaves them married to one person and in civil union with another.

Another more common example than you would think is the issue if polygamy in the Mormon Church. It is extremely difficult to prosecute directly for the simple reason that the man will marry his first wife in both church and civil union and the rest of his wives in church only. This leaves him legally "married" only once, but with several legitimate wives in the eyes of the church.

But in this country, marriage is strictly a religious institution.

You couldn't be more incorrect. If you really believe this is true, try getting married in a church, synagogue, etc. without a STATE-ISSUED marriage license and see how legally valid your marriage is. In addition, if what you say is true, then anyone in this country who was married by a judge, justice of the peace, etc. isn't actually married - since it wasn't a "religious" ceremony.

This argument always makes me laugh. A religious ceremony is just a personal way of sanctifying your marriage. It does NOT make you legally married - just ask the polygamists in this country that have had religious ceremonies for all of their "marriages". Your attempt to differentiate between "marriage" and "civil unions" is completely specious. In this country, the word "marriage" applies to ANY couple that is joined together by means of a government-issued MARRIAGE license. You can talk in circles all you want about how a wedding conducted outside of a religious setting is only a civil union - but that's not how it works in this country.

Homophobic, heterophobic. Theres a phobic for everything these days. In stead of people being for or against it. If your against it then your phobic. I really could care one way or another.

Cola-phobia?? Please say it isn't so!

So remove both.....none of the "benefits" have any intristic value and are paid for by single people. Any precieved legal right could be handled by two people entering into a legal agreement (w/o needs for lawyers also)...while legal arguements would result...they already do in marriages.

Problem solved....no special tax consideration for marriages, only dependents, insurance, visitations...all those big deal issues could be handled by people writing down their wishes and honoring what they say.

jabbausaf I'm certainly on the same page with this. I don't want to marry my partner but I do love him and want to protect our relationship. Civil Union would be a wonderful way to do this but alas it isn't what is happening. I've been married three times and my ex-husbands didn't honor our commitment or find it binding so why not have a choice in how we connect as a couple?

@ jabbausaf

Right! Totally agree with you. On that same note though I have always seen ,the differenciator being that ,Marriage has a religious annotation to it.

Almost like seperation of church and state, Civil Union does not.

Problem solved....no special tax consideration for marriages, only dependents, insurance, visitations...all those big deal issues could be handled by people writing down their wishes and honoring what they say

John, the problem is, it's not always a matter of the couple involved "honoring what they say". It's a matter of OTHERS not honoring the written documentation. There's been multiple situations where a gay couple has signed medical powers of attorney for each other and hospitals have refused to honor them. And what about issues like adoption, where the couple who wants to adopt has no choice but to adhere to the rules of the adoption agencies? Laws are in place to provide some degree of consistency - and that's why they need to be changed to grant gay men and women exactly the same rights that married heterosexuals now have.

The basic problem with civil unions in the US is that they do not include heterosexual couples. This IS a form of sexual discrimination. I have no problems at all with civil unions. I simply believe people that co-habitate without the "blessing" of a marriage should ALL be afforded the same rights, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. It doesn't make a bit of difference. Everyone in a domestic partnership (be it a traditional marriage or a civil union) should have the expectation that they will have the same benefits and protections as their neighbors that also have a domestic partnership. Period.

GAWD....I hate to say "I knew it"...... maybe now everything is crystal clear about what 'civil parterships' are. FOLLOW THE MONEY folks, it has nothing to do with "true love", "equal rights", or anything else!

justoneguy:

What are you talking about? Civil unions are about granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples. It means tax reasons, as well as other reasons, like power of attorney for their spouse, sharing of property, custody of children, etc. The same things that married couples get. So it is about equal rights.

Not that having civil unions for homosexual couples and marriages for heterosexual couples is equal. It's separate, and separate is not equal.

I forgot for a moment that England doesn't quite have the separation of church and state that the US does. This is a matter of British rights to a civil union without a marriage and has nothing to do with the US. In the US you can get a civil union without a religious marriage.

Not my concern. Moving on.......

Chris-749391

But in this country, marriage is strictly a religious institution.

Completely false, and exactly backwards. In the US all marriages are merely secular legal contracts. What religious rituals you might associate with your marriage are completely irrelevant to the state.

Governments shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" and churchs shouldn't be in the business of "civil unions."

There should be a law (for consenting human adults, should someone mention marrying their dog, as I am sure someone will shortly) that governments can grant civil unions, but never grant a marriage license.

But in this country, marriage is strictly a religious institution.

That statement is simply false. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. I was married at the courthouse and my husband is an atheist, but I am just as much legaly MARRIED as anyone who was married by their priest, minister, rabbi, or imam. Where the heck did you get the idea that marriage was somehow religious merely because it is OFTEN conducted in a religious setting? You might as well the government shouldn't issue death certificates because most funerals are conducted in churches!

Good way for them to show understanding and equality. I do admire them for that.

Chris- Mormons DO NOT practice polygamy- and haven't for over 100 years. Get your history right.

There are some groups NOT ASSDOCIATED with the Church that do- please do not confuse the two.

I'm tired of these religious nut bags trying to stick their noses into our civil marriage laws and threatening the secular sanctity of my civil marriage. If these people want to have some religious equivalent of marriage, let them, but just don't call it "marriage." How about "religious union"? There you go. They can have a regular civil marriage and, if they want to, they can form a religious union in a church ceremony. That way, they can still refer to themselves as "married." But if they don't formalize their relationship with a civil marriage under secular law, then they shouldn't be able to call their religious union a "marriage." Otherwise, it is completely demeaning to my marriage and, in fact, threatens the very institution of marriage.

Will

Without knowing it you have come very close to the real issue. Marriage for gays does not affect me one way or the other, it affects them.

The next step, however, is for gays to go into a church and demand the pastor marry them.

He is the put in the position where if he stays true to the requirements of his faith as he sees them then he faces law suits for 'discrimination'.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Those that want it, fine. But to say you have the right to force others to accept it regardless of the believes, especially in the church, is wrong.

ChrisN-425912

The next step, however, is for gays to go into a church and demand the pastor marry them.

He is the put in the position where if he stays true to the requirements of his faith as he sees them then he faces law suits for 'discrimination'.

False. Completely false. The government cannot dictate that any religion perform any religious ritual, and churches currently discriminate against a wide variety of people in a wide variety of ways - that's the nature of religion. Your religion will always be free to be as bigoted as its members want it to be.

However, members of a particular religious sect can lobby within their organization for positive change, and we've seen that happen already in the UCC, ELCA and Episcopalians.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

Also false, and truly ignorant. When did you choose to be straight, Chris?

There is a lot of confusion of the terms marriage and civil union, and most people "married" by a JP consider them selves just as "married" as someone with a $100,000 for4mal church wedding. And legally it is the case. But the two are not the same thing in this country.

In the US, the two are EXACTLY the same thing, because the legal aspect is all that matters.

Barry:

"In the US, the two are EXACTLY the same thing, because the legal aspect is all that matters."

They are not exactly the same thing. Because if I get married to my boyfriend in Massachusetts, my marriage is recognized anywhere in the United States. The same can't be said for civil unions. In fact, in some states, same sex marriage and civil unions are banned. And in some states, you can have a civil union, but you don't get the same rights as married couples.

So they are not exactly the same. Marriage is recognized everywhere in the country, civil unions are not.

Barry,

My marriage of 3 years and not receiving the same $2500 tax credit as those that are hetero sexual can claim, begs to differ.

http://tinyurl.com/24moe65

http://tinyurl.com/27dna6g

I was unclear in my posting. I was referring to the portion of the quote that said "most people 'married' by a JP consider them selves just as 'married' as someone with a $100,000 for4mal church wedding." Those two marraiges, regardless of the fact that one was solemnized in a church and the other by a Justice of the Peace, are identical.

I agree with you completely that civil unions and marriage are not identical.

The gay and lesbian (aren't those two words basically the same?) community would not allow such a travestyhappen since it infringes on their rights to be completely different while arguing equal rights.

Apparently you didn't read the entire article - including the part that said that gay rights activists are BACKING this couple's bid for a civil partnership.

Longhair: gay and lesbian are two separate descriptions. The word "homosexual" describes both gays and lesbians. A male homosexual is described as "gay" and a homosexual female is usually described as a "lesbian".

reinforces a previous comment...the need to show how different they are, yet wanting the sameness of others if it has an advantage...and I don't care if they can get married...except that is one more example of preferrential tax treatment, and entitlement treatment compared to singles.

Get rid of the existing preferential marriage treatment instead of adding to it.

Then why do the women, when they come out, come out as gay? Then as a woman, they are lesbian? Why don't gay dudes get their own identifier? Isn't that sexist that women get a separate name to call themselves?

That should be the next big argument; categorizing gays. Why cant guys get the same treatment?

So on a related topic: what does that make Cher's daughter/son? Is he a lesbian, or is she gay?

Apparently you didn't read the entire article

That would apply to at least 90% of the posters on Newsvine in general. Why read a whole article when you can just read a headline?

reinforces a previous comment...the need to show how different they are, yet wanting the sameness of others if it has an advantage...and I don't care if they can get married...except that is one more example of preferrential tax treatment, and entitlement treatment compared to singles.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Heterosexual singles have the CHOICE of whether or not to get married. Gay couples DON'T have that choice. In addition, it's pretty much human nature to want what others have if it "has an advantage" - that's not restricted to gay men and women.

@Longhair: Wow, you really are a moron, huh?

"Gay rights activists are backing the couple's bid[...]" Reading, it's fundamental.

Longhair

The only gays that are complaining about this are the ones that live in your head. Please read the articles before you comment

This would actually aide the GLB community. If heteros can get civil unions and get married then the issue is clearly discrimination. This would open the door for lawyers all over the place to fight for GLB rights.

Gays got the special preferential treatment that they wanted (to have a union with another man/woman) and now a system that was set up specifically for them to stop whining, is found to not be set up for someone else that it was not intended to be for! Go figure!

Do what everyone else does that doesnt want things to go the way they are made to: get a will and/or trust drawn up to do what you want it to.

It will lead to more strife in the heterosexual community. In nearly every case, one of them would want an actual legal marriage. Relatives might push for marriage, unless they don't like your intended, in which case they will say, "Hey, why don't you just go for a civil union instead, so I don't have to tell my bridge partners about it?" However, I would be in favor of the following:

Have a legally binding covenant marriage available which is very difficult to get out of without actual grounds like cruelty, adultery, etc. Also allow anyone to opt to have a civil union, which would be as easy to get out of as unilateral no-fault is right now. BTW, there would also be NO reason to limit the civil unions to just two people, since people involved in polyamory relationships have just as many civil rights as homosexuals. There is a LOT more historical precedent for polygamy than for gay marriage.

I

I'm sure down in TX inbreeding is a real problem, but please leave your own family issues out of it.

Mutts Rule, sarcasm strike to close to home there?

yeah and what about herder/sheep unions....the folks in this article are from england right? everyone freak out, i'm a species-ist (its like a racist, except i have all my teeth)

A cousin to an acquaintance of mine had his ribs broken trying to consummate his union with a cow.

When I tried to form a union with one of my sheep the judge told me to BAAAAAAD

Are you sure he didn't say "are you my daaaaaaaaaddy"?

Longhair -

Nice to see you have more opinions on an article you didn't read

I totally agree...What about women (or men) who are with someone they TRULY LOVE, but the other person has debts (such as child support or taxes), that is theirs. I shouldn't be responsible for those things. I know that good old saying what's yours is mine, but not when it comes to child support ( that is THEIR responsibility)!!! We love each other and plan on being together, but i'm sorry i'm not going to be responsible for something if he can't pay it!!! And its sad because its issues like that, that keep alot of people from getting married. In a civil union you can have that "bond" but also know you still have that freedom of knowing when you open YOUR check there isn't a surprise of their debt being taken from your hard earned money....Not to mention with a Civil Union imagine how much the divorce rates would go down!!!

then get married in city hall!! I can see people that don't want to get married in a church, but what's the problem with a civil marriage?

My husband and I had the very same problem. We didn't WANT to get married, we wanted a civil partnership. We were told we couldn't have one unless we were a gay couple. We did end up getting married - the legal benefits are too numerous to give up for not liking the word.

There's a lot in a name, rrobeson.

If civil unions and marriages are equal, why would a straight couple be barred from one and a gay couple from the other?

Civil Unions and Marriage (same-sex or opposite sex) are not the same. The legal benefits/rights are what seperate the two.

In my opinion, the issue is americans belief that their religious beliefs trump everyone elses. If Marriage IS a religious issue, then the govt shouldnt be in the business of issuing marriage certs - or offering rights/benefits that are based on marriage. Instead, we should all be allowed to get civil unions through the govt...and if you want that marriage, go to your church.

By the way...if a church WANTS to marry a gay couple, they should be able to, as well.

This is supposedly the LAND OF THE FREE, in which we all get to puruse our version of happiness.

Scottsville2510573, why would divorce rates go down if civil unions were legal. Your post makes no sense at all. People in civil unions are just as likely to separate as those who are legally married.

Jessica - only if your version of happiness is in line with what the religious right tells you what will make you happy. After all they know more about what is better for you than you do, just ask them.

But we all know it is Bush's fault anyway. (sorry could not resist)

This is directed to Scottsville2510573 when I got married I had no debts but my husband did. I didn't like that I had to inherit that debt but marriage is a partnership. It took years but I was able to help him pay off the debt. Now his credit score is better and he knows that whatever problem financially comes I will be there for him. It actually made me feel good that I helped in paying off that debt and it built trust between us. You saying that you want 'freedom' and to open 'your checkbook' that is just selfish. If you really feel that way then you should just be single. I feel sorry for your partner.

Stasia, no Sweetie, I feel sorry for you!!! That you are crazy enough to pay off a mans debt with your hard earned money!!! I"m sure he does trust you, hell i'd trust you too if you paid off my bills...I'd look you dead in your eyes and say I LOVE YOU, I'D NEVER LEAVE YOU too...What are you gonna do when that man and his good credit score roll out...Selfish, you dam right i'm selfish!! I work too dam hard to give my money for somebody elses debt!! You made it, you pay it!! If you can't afford it, don't get it!! You can feel as sorry as you want for my man, but the reality is he KNOWS he has a strong woman who won't put up with man that can't take care of his own!!...So you keep your 1950's way of think cause one of these days you will hear those words echo in your ear " I told you so!!!"....Have a Nice Day!!!

Demar, Your Boring!!!

boo hoo. hand me another tissue.

Wow Scottsville..... you have some real pent up anger issues there don't you? I'm inclined to disagree with you. If you go into a relationship thinking "What [am I] gonna do when that man and his good credit score roll out," then you shouldn't be going into the relationship (or getting married, or making a civil union) at all. People should go into a loving relationship (marriage, civil union) if and only if they can see it lasting through the crap that life throws at them and staying committed to each other unconditionally. You, my dear, are the type of person that is giving our world the divorce rate that it has.

By the way, you only come off as ignorant and angry when you shout useless insults at people that aren't even grammatically correct. It's "You're boring".... not "Your boring."

scottsville-

you are arguing against your own reasoning!

what's yours is mine, but not when it comes to child support ( that is THEIR responsibility)!!

being married does not make you responsible for their bills. You can be married and have separate finances like bank accounts and tax files. Plenty of people do that because they marry deadbeats like your man!

Scottsville - Do you even understand that a marriage or a civil union is a partnership? Do you understand what a partnership means.? Why get married if you think they will eventually leave you? Why get married if you aren't going to team up as "one"? I just don't get that mindset. Marriage is a union. That union isn't about getting tax breaks or visitation rights at the hospital. The union is meant to join two lives into "one". Having the attitude of "pay your own damn bills" sounds more like a roomate situation than it does a marriage. Good luck at your divorce hearing. I hope you get to keep every damn dollar you ever made....because I heard that money buys happiness.

Leave it to Scottsville and the rest of the Liberals to market another way to add to debt without being accountible for it! Now they want 'Unions' so one can run up thousands of dollars in frivolous spending then default on it while the other keeps squeaky clean credit and cannot be held accountible for their partner's action. Makes more sense than having to come to grips with reality (the Demos' motto).

You guys are so funny....Talking about what a marriage is Truly made of!! People it is 2010!! MONEY is what makes the world go round not Love so deal with it!! Again those 1950's ways of thinking are long gone!!! Tell me one bill collector that will let you pay what you owe with Love!!!!.....Trust me i don't add to anyones debt cause i pay my way!! Just like my man pays his way!!!....You all think Love pays for our cruises, our $3000 a month mortgage...NO, its MONEY... you think I LOVE YOU was the only thing that put 5 karats on my ring finger, NO it was MONEY!!!.....You all thinking its Love that is going to get you through are half the reason our economy is the way it is!! Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the 21st century!!.... Angry, NO i'm not Angry, i'm telling the TRUTH...some of you just can't deal with it!! Honesty is the Best Policy....So say what you want about me, the reality is its the TRUTH!!!....So the next time your bill collectors call tell them "my love will pay for the rent this month" LOL... Off to Starbucks cause some of you all make me laugh...Can't wait to tell my other half that we can actually take our vacation this year and pay for it with LOVE and we can leave the money at home!!!

Very well put. Kudos!

@Rick 7030 cute comment, we both got a good laugh at that one... LOL, LMAO... you are runner up for our "Joke of the Day"...... Try Tomorrow and you just might get first place....

I see. So you basically want all the benefits of marriage with NONE of the committment or responsibility. Well, that pretty much sums up the mentality in the United States (and many other parts of the world) these days: "How can I get the most and do the least?"

I suppose I was raised with a little more character than that. You shouldn't get something for nothing...and anything worth having is worth working for. You can call me "out-dated", but I happen to believe this is also true of marriage.

...What about women (or men) who are with someone they TRULY LOVE, but the other person has debts (such as child support or taxes), that is theirs. I shouldn't be responsible for those things.

In other words, you want all the benefits of marriage but none of the responsibilities. Then you justify your have-my-cake-eat-it-too selfishness by saying you are "in love". What garbage. If you love the other person so much, you'll help them pay their child support. BTW, there is already an "injured spouse" provision in the tax code, so you wouldn't be responsible for a new spouse's tax previous tax liability. But do you really want to marry someone who got himself or herself in such a predicament?

The reason civil unions were set up is to give same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. The reason Same sex partners can't have a "Marriage" is because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Therefore you have civil unions which gives the same benefits as marriage but between same sex partners. Same sex couples will never to have a "Marriage" because in order for that to happen you would have to change the defenition of the word " Marriage". People can argue all they want about wanting equal benefits but the fact of the matter is Marriage is a union between one man and one woman period. You can't argue truth!

But civil unions DON'T give the same benefits as marriage. How many times does this have to be said? There are hundreds (over 1300) rights associated with marriage that are NOT associated with civil unions.

The reason Same sex partners can't have a "Marriage" is because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman.

What's so magical about this definition anyway? What keeps definitions from changing? The definition of marriage changed to allow marriage between members of different religions, and between members of different races, and between members of different social classes. Why should this be any different?

Wow, that's awfully depressing scottsville but knock yourself out if you enjoy it.

@scottsville

glad to see you get a laugh from him laughing @ you! You set it up so that he has no commitment to you and you dont have him do the right thing either for his kid. We are all here so impressed that you feel like you have to tell us how much you spend on yourself. would be nice if he gave some to his kid! For marriage to be something you really dont care for, you sure put a lot into a fake one.

Being wasteful and arrogant does not make you truthful, just stupid. Sorry we all didnt "OOO" and "AAHH" at your mortgage, ring, and vacation, but some of us are sensible.

Bravo Rick 7030 very well said...i'll toast to you this evening.....and you don't have to "OOO" and AAhh" over anything of mine, i do it enough LMAO....To all of my Fan I now must say "GOOD NIGHT".....I Hope you have gotten as good a laugh out of this as I have....some people are just so serious WOW...LOL :)

Ask the former President that argued over the definition of the word "is" to keep himself out of jail. That should tell you what the value of the definition of a word is. :) It is a "LEGAL" thing you ignorant liberal whiners. For thousands of years in every language the word for "Marriage" has been to describe the relationship between and man and a woman. Changing that definition to placate 1% to 3% of the general population, would be like changing the definition of the word "CAT" to refer to a member of the Canis lupus familiaris genus of mammals.

While we are in that area. What about two heterosexual persons of the same sex that want to form a "Civil Union" or "domestic partnership" in the places they are legal? Should "They" be discriminated against, just because they don't engage in, well lets not go into details?? How is one to "KNOW" they aren't a "gay/lesbian" couple?? and not just forming the partnership so one can steal the tax benefits, property rights, and "family" benefits from the others employer?? Like no one would do that?? Yeah right.

Lets say You have a 6 figure salary job with a "Cadillac" health-care and other benefits plan, your best friend since grade-school just got divorced from an abusive a-hole and is on the street with 3 kids and nothing. You two form a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and suddenly she and her kids have health-care coverage and what-not for "free" as your new "dependants. You get to claim them as deductions on your income Taxes, etc. Is it Scamming the system? He11, Yes! But it for a "good" cause, so it would be OK, right?? If your a "Liberal" it would be , with that conditional morality. Never mind that everyone elses costs are increased by the insurance company to cover that "loss", so they don't go bankrupt and everybody lose coverage.

JL Schroderus - I agree that all couples regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to have a civil union, or civil partnership, or whatever name it may be called, providing both partners with all the rights and priveleges that come with that legal arrangement. I believe, however, that "marriage" as defined in the Bible, is a covenant provided by God to couples of the opposite sex; in light of which, I don't believe that gay couples should be married in a church. That doesn't make me homophobic - I'm not. I just believe strongly in the covenants God provided his faithful.

JL, what's happening to you is dead wrong. But if you look at the bigger picture, the "state" is deciding more and more (vs. less) what pretty much everybody should pay or do at any given moment. I wouldn't be looking for the elephant to give up any tent space in the near future as we all get pulled deeper and deeper in the wormhole of government "care".

For the most part, religious traditions in the world reserve marriage to heterosexual unions, but there are exceptions including Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ and Reform Jewish congregations, some Anglican dioceses, and various Neopagan faiths. This model is currently recognized by various jurisdictions and religious denominations.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential

Scottsville the more i read your post the more i feel sorry for your man

notright-1432242

Same sex couples will neverto have a "Marriage" because in order for that to happen you would have to change the defenition of the word " Marriage". People can argue all they want about wanting equal benefits but the fact of the matter is Marriage is a union between one man and one woman period. You can't argue truth

I guess it depends on your perspective, in Canada we have the Civil Marriage Act which defines marriage as

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others

This is the Act's official legislative summary:

This enactment extends the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes to same-sex couples in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts to ensure equal access for same-sex couples to the civil effects of marriage and divorce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act

I guess your truth, isn't as absolute as you think.

htdjpf

While we are in that area. What about two heterosexual persons of the same sex that want to form a "Civil Union" or "domestic partnership" in the places they are legal

Are you really arguing that because two heterosexuals might commit fraud that is a reason to keep gays and lesbians from marrying? As far as I know, there isn't a legal requirement of consummation for marriage to be legal(I haven't heard of anyone following up),so if it will happen as you say then I can only assume that it is already happening in heterosexual "marriages". For example, shall we ban all seniors from marrying because you might think they aren't, well lets not go into details, making them more suspect to you? What's with heterosexuals commiting all this fraud?/sarc :)

Wow Scottsville - I spent almost my whole life living only for myself and thought I was cynical, but I feel sorry for you.

Totally agree. In Mexico you get married civilly and ecclesiastically in seperate ceremonies. I think that's the way is should be. Good for the couple.

Centuries ago in England, marriage was performed by the church, and the government recognition of the union was a completely seperate matter. Many children were considered bastards by the government because the parents never bothered to do the civil part, just the religious part. When the state took control over marriage, it seemed to simplify things, but in the long run it just made the government responsible for making decisions about what is really a religious sacrament.

It would solve a lot of problems if we went back to this and completely seperated the marriage from the civil union. Any church can choose what type of couples(or groups) they will wed, and any government can choose what types of couples they will grant civil unions to.

You are WRONG! In THIS country, you don NOT get a marriage license from your church, you get it from the GOVERNMENT! That government is NOT just here to govern to the religious right. A marriage license is a LEGAL contract NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE! It may have once been but NOT ANY MORE!

That is exactly my point. It is now a legal institution, with rules decided by the government. However, the vast majority of people still look at marriage as a religious practice, and try to assign their moral beliefs to it. People who oppose gay marriage, arranged marriages, polygamy, ets generally do it because of the moral beliefs put upon them by the religion and culture they were raised in. That is why many people approve of gay unions but not gay marriage. The word marriage carries a moral conotation, which is why I think the government should get out of the marriage business and return to civil unions.

There are many countries that require you to have a civil ceremony prior to having a religious one. In other words, you're married at the town hall, courthouse, whatever - and then can do all the bells and whistles you want in the way of a "wedding", so you'll be married in the eyes of whatever religious group you belong to. That's why I think StopandThink makes a good point about the government getting out of the "marriage" business. Let the government issue licenses for a legal ceremony that would confer all of the LEGAL rights and privileges currently associated with marriage - then let anyone who wants to put icing on the cake by having a fancy ceremony do so.

Ok, let's do it as Stop-Thinking has suggested. All of you who are married by a justice of the peace, are now going to fill out your federal tax forms as "civil-unioned filing jointly/singly" You think the feds are going to stand for that one? No, you're MARRIED. End of story. If "marriages" and "civil unions" are on even ground, as many wrongly claim - then there should be no problem with a gay couple getting married and a hetero couple getting civil-unioned.

But, no. For some reason, if you're straight it's automatically a marriage, whether you did it in a church, or a courthouse, or by bungee-jumping off a bridge by an internet minister. And if you're gay, well, tough cookies.

And that's just wrong. The GOVERNMENT issues MARRIAGE licenses. Therefore, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, should be able to go to their GOVERNMENT and get one. Gay, Straight, Trans (straight or gay) - absolutely ANYONE.

ok, obviously we have failed to mention the social, cultural and overall plain and simple benefits of hetereosexual marriage to our society. that is why the gov't encourages this people. duh. get over the emotional debate! and how do you encourage people? give them more money! duh #2. without stable hetereosexual marriages that produce children and families, our society would be complete sh*t. there is absolutely NO discrimination in denying same sex couples the right to marry. take your civil unions and quit begging the very gov't you chastise to sanction your abnormal behavior. c'mon!

Rev. C, how can you say "there is no discrimination in denying same-sex couples the right to marry" when there are rights conferred by marriage (over 1300 of them) that are NOT conferred with civil unions?

And if the purpose of marriage is allegedly to produce children and families - does that mean that those who can't have children (for medical or age reasons) or who choose NOT to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married?

And WHO are YOU to say as gay people we do NOT contribute to society? We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, police and firefighters. We are in the military, we are in your church, WE ARE EVERYWHERE! And the MAJORITY are law abiding, tax paying and tend to make a good income! I would suggest YOU get over your bigotry and face the facts, WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE and WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE BEING TREATED AS UNEQUAL!

Good question, Vicki. My boyfriend and I don't plan on having children, yet we still have the right to get married. Does that make our potential marriage unstable?

StopAndThink-743052

It would solve a lot of problems if we went back to this and completely seperated the marriage from the civil union. Any church can choose what type of couples(or groups) they will wed, and any government can choose what types of couples they will grant civil unions to.

That's the current situation in the US - marriage as recognized by the state is merely a secular legal contract. Religious weddings are completely irrelevant to marriage, and churches deny weddings to a variety of people all the time (like divorced Catholics).

Similarly, you can have as many religious weddings as you like but unless you sign the state's legal contract and pay the licensing fee you aren't married.

Excuse me. How do you imagine the government got into the marriage business in the first place? You have been able to marry in a secular ceremony at the courthouse for 200 years. Why? Because guess what, the purpose of marriage is to protect CHILDREN, not so adults can make a "public declaration of our love"! A secondary purpose of marriage is to protect the interests of the parent, most often the mother, who sacrificed her career at least partially for the sake of the children. Civil union, with it's imaginary equality, does nothing to address this. Adults, ACT like adults! It's all about the children, not you!!!

Good question, Vicki. My boyfriend and I don't plan on having children, yet we still have the right to get married. Does that make our potential marriage unstable?

Apparently so, if you go by Rev. C's logic.

It's all about the children, not you!!!

And apparently by OomYaaqub's logic as well. When I got married (at the age of 42) I had already had a tubal ligation (after having one child from a non-marital relationship) and was unable to have children - so I guess that just being in love wasn't a legitimate reason for me to get married.

And according to OomYaaqub, APPARENTLY women have had careers for over 200 years! WHAT THE HEL ROCK do these people crawl out of? I don't mind reading a post that disagrees with my point of view provided that post is STUPID! Read a book OTHER than the Bible some time you PUTZ!

Taxas: It became an issue because the government offers 1,300+ benefits to married couples that unmarried people do not receive. Being gay in America means paying 100% of one's tax duties but being treated like 7/8 of a citizen.

Legally, there are also issues of property, child custody and of course taxes. Marriage is not just a spiritual term, it is in fact a legal standing. Historically, marriage really had little to do with love and God, moreover it was a vehicle to consolidate wealth and power and protect family assets. The church performed marriages because the churches at one time were the source of governmental power. We tend to forget that at one time religious and political power were one in the same.

There are a huge number of civil laws that affect people that are married. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by every court system in the land. It determines how property is divided if the marriage is dissolved or there is a death, and has some bearing on custody of children. Then, there is of course the tax implications provided by the contract of marriage.

I believe that the right to enter the contract of marriage should be offered to all people. There is a basic legal inequity in not allowing same sex couples to enter into this agreement. The alternative is to abolish marriage as a legal status and use the term civil union for all these relationships. For those of you that fear that this will open the door to unions of people and animals or inanimate objects or even children, contacts require the parties to be able to legally consent. Children, puppies and statues of Elvis cannot legally enter into contracts.

Legal Texan - are you being intentionally stupid? It appears to be the case.

Im not legally married because I cant be, and while I know deep in my heart the depth of our commitment, that means NOTHING to the govt...or her family for that matter (or mine, really). My partner has MS, and she's only 30 years old. She's had MS for 9 years...and thankfully she's progressed relatively well, but we know that there's going to come a day when her health fails her and im going to be legally responsible for her in so many ways, but our govt wont see it that way.

Im already terrified that her mother, who hates me (and there's a long story here and its really not about me) will attempt to legally take her from me should she become incapable of defending herself and her desires in an open court. No amount of wills, ect can stop that legal process from happening if her mother chooses to be a rotten human being, and living in a semi-conservative state, I have no assurance that a judge will care about two lesbians rights or desires.

I guess being you, you have the luxury of not caring about any of this.

Me, being me...not so much.

Jessica:

Your partner needs to get a "Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare" and a "Living Will". That should state clearly her wishes, as a competent adult, should she become incapicitated or incompetent. Check these out with a lwyer to see how they work in your state. Her wishes must be honored by law with these documents, regardless of what Mom says.

Hope this info helps! :)

Being gay in America means paying 100% of one's tax duties but being treated like 7/8 of a citizen.

Indigo, make that being SINGLE.

Kristin, while your advice is good - it's an unfortunate fact that there have been cases where hospitals refused to honor POAs for gay couples. Even with living wills, a family member could claim undue influence by the partner.

Legal Texanlegal

Congrats for making the most asinine comment on these boards that I've seen to date!

The whole point of gov't is to prevent dumb hicks from thinking they are the authority on what is right and wrong. Case in Point.

The last thing we need is to define unions based on the Gospel of Legal Texan!

Im already terrified that her mother, who hates me (and there's a long story here and its really not about me) will attempt to legally take her from me should she become incapable of defending herself and her desires in an open court. No amount of wills, ect can stop that legal process from happening if her mother chooses to be a rotten human being

That statement is simply FALSE. My husband works in a hospital. Those powers of attorney, etc., are LEGALLY BINDING. Hospitals take them very seriously because they can be sued big time. However, it has to be done properly--this isn't something you do via some do-it-yourself software.

The law knows there are people with rotten parents, and allows you to name your own guardian should she become incapacitated. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are sleeping together BTW; she could name her sister or just any friend if she wanted. What's relevant is that she name someone SHE picked. BTW it is even possible for a legally married person to name someone other than their spouse as legal guardian if they don't trust their spouse enough. So the whole marriage thing is a red herring.

What you and your lover need to do ASAP is to see a competent attorney. Do NOT believe the gay activists who try to tell you otherwise. Get an attorney. And then, if your mother-in-law is as bad as all THAT, I would seriously talk your lover into moving with you out of state, preferably at least 1,000 miles away. I'm very serious; plenty of people have done this for the sake of their own mental health. In this case it might be for the sake of physical health as well, as there is a definite mind-body connection even in the case of bona fide physical illness. Being in a safe place away from her mother obviously won't cure her MS, but it just might slow its progression if her mind is relatively at peace.

OomYaaqub

My husband works in a hospital. Those powers of attorney, etc., are LEGALLY BINDING. Hospitals take them very seriously because they can be sued big time.

You seem to be willfully ignorant. Google "Lisa Marie Pond" to learn what really happens to gays even when they have all their paperwork in order.

OomYaaqub, you truly don't have a clue about this issue.

it's not the marriage that's the issue, it's the responsibilities for taking care of children, property, wealth, etc. that becomes an issue. That's why laws are needed and only governments make binding laws.

But that's exactly the point that Molly is making. Let the civil union be the ceremony that confers legal rights, and leave "weddings" as a secondary ceremony for those who want to pretty things up, or make sure they're married in the eyes of their particular religious institution.

If the government would stop calling it a "marriage" then the religious leaders and followers would no longer have an argument as to why it should remain between a man and a woman as they so vehemently defend.

Quite the opposite. They are basically proving that its ridiculous to not allow gays to use the term marriage and/or straight couples from using the term civil union.

You're right. I was an idiot for not reading it correctly the first time.

what they are pointing out is that gays will never be happy. A special provision was made just for them, and now because the system does not recognize anyone but them, they are mad! Cant win with those that constantly want to change the rules only to favor them, but dont want others to be able to do the same.

rick you are so full of it! Homosexuals have a better track record for long term relationships than heterosexuals and they usually don't cheat during their commitments. If you are unenlightened about something it is best to stay mute as not to look like a fool.

ROFL, JS.....THAT is an ignorant statement! Let's see, I would have been married 6 times by now! Maybe YOU should stay mute!

Homosexuals have a better track record for long term relationships than heterosexuals

Sources, please?

JS

What are you even talking about? No one has said a thing about any track record! But since you brought it up; years ago when the very first wave of gay "marriages" were legalized, the first divorces were filed about 3 weeks later!

It is WELL documented (even by gays) that there is so much promiscuity in that lifestyle. In the club/bar bathrooms, AIDS parties where the uninfected partner purposely tries to get AIDS in order to sympathize. Rampant cheating.

If you want to argue a point, thats all well and good, but at least argue what is being talked about. It makes you look pretty dumb to refute something that was never said.

All the gay couples I know have decades-long monogamous relationships. Most of the straights I know are divorced and remarried. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it's worth noting that gays and lesbians do actually love their partners.

and I struggle to believe those against same-sex marriage for religious reasons, would be ok with a govt that no longer issued marriage licenses and now issued civil unions to gays or straights.

Because at the end of the day, its not about the WORD or what its traditionally meant, or any of that BS...its about ensuring that gays are not viewed as equals or worthy of equal protection under the law. it's about ensuring that the status quo of hatred against those who are "abnormal" in their view is upheld and maintained. The idea of living in a society that embraces gay people - from a legal perspective - is the worst possible scenario ever.

We need to stop pretending this is a semantics problem, its not...its a hatred problem. I guess if the religious right wont allow us to have our equal rights, we should start banning adulterers from re-marrying, or really any person who violates any of god's laws...in any sort of way. As the religious right see it "we simply cant give the impression that society accepts these deviants and violators of gods laws".

The list of who cant be married is going to be HUGE! And frankly, the more people you ban from getting married, the more likely they'll join the rational side of this arguement...not hte crazy religious side. No one really cares until it directly affects them, then suddenly its not so cool to discriminate against OTHER people anymore.

I like the way you think, Jessica. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Those who oppose same sex unions on religious grounds must then also accept all the other religious rules! I think that just might get them seeing more clearly how unfair this situation is!

Jessica - what you say may apply to many who oppose gay marraige, but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I, for one, believe that a marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people made before God. I, personally, do not believe in a lot of what the bible says, and honestly, I do not transcribe to any organized religion; but, that being said, according to the bible, being gay is a sin, as is getting a divorce, and adultery.

My personal belief is, a marraige is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. This is a religious belief indoctrinated in me from when I was younger and being brought up as a Catholic. I do not believe the government has any place telling anyone who they can or cannot marry, as it is a religious ceremony.

Now, if two people get married, in the religious aspect, this can also be considered a civil union; which is what I feel the government should be allowed to issue a license for. However, if those two people decide to get a divorce, their union is being broken, which means they no longer are allowed to reap the government issued benefits of that union. If they choose to later enter into a new union, that is their choice, as there is no law saying how many times these unions can be entered into and abandoned. However, many churches will not allow them to be remarried.

If two men or two women want to enter into a civil union, I don't see where there is a problem, and I don't see where the government should be able to deny them this privilege. After all, isn't that the whole point of the seperation of church and state?

I know many gay people, and I do feel they should be able to stand up in front of their friends and family and publicly declare their love for one another and reap the same benefits as anyone else. I, personally, would not consider it a marraige, but then again, I don't consider my mother or father's 2nd marraiges to be marraiges, but rather unions, as neither of them were married in a church.

Please don't assume that because there are some narrow-minded people out there, that we are all that way. There are some of us that are able to have some religious beliefs while being able to see beyond the scope of the religion and know that reality and what is written in the bible are not always the same thing.

You can't take away someones right to be a bigot, but you don't have to support it. That is what the U.S. gov't is doing. I agree with a lot of what you said. It is not a semantic debate make all unions the same for all, there should only be one union.

I think anyone who claims to be affiliated with a religion should have to go all the way or no way. For people to pick and choose is just so ridiculous and shows their true beliefs. It is really sad the the US is allowing religious thought in politics. All of it can be thought in terms of logic and reason.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

No matter how many times you keep saying "marriage is religious" it is NOT true. It happens to be sanctioned by most religions and the ceremony is sometimes religious in nature, but that doesn't make the institution of marriage religious any more than birth or death are religious. Would you say that, just because people are often buried in churchyards, that death is a stricly religious institution and that the government should stop issuing death certificates or do away with all laws concerning the declaration of death or the handling of human remains? Sheesh.

Marriage is a legal contract FIRST, and a religious matter only secondarily. That's why, when a priest, minister, or rabbi marries a couple, he says "By the power vested in me by the state of __________"

There is "marriage: which can be validated by everyone from a justice of the peace to boat captain. There is also "holy matrimony" which is a religious thing that be be validated by anyone who is certified as clergy - be they Christians or Believers in the Holy Garbage Dump.

If a hetro couple wants a civil union, give it to them

Want to know how to prove that Christians hate gays more than they hate murderers?

A convicted murderer can get married in all fifty states -- even if he/she is a multiple murderer.

A gay or lesbian couple can only get married in a handful of states thanks to the Christians enacting DOMA at the federal level and Prop-8 style laws in 43 states.

Christians love murderers and hate homosexuals. Is anyone surprised?

@Oom - death is not the burial is.

And i really do see this as a semantic debate. The government should choose one word, marriage, or union. Then use that to describe the lawful contract between two humans.

Those states are few and have been becoming fewer over the past few decades.

In some countries, a wedding consists of two parts; the civil union performed in a government office and then the religious ceremony performed in church. Which of the two is more binding? Only the belief in "the commitment to each other" determines the strength of the union.

no equal for butt plugging!

I am an American lesbian with no constitutional civil rights.

None whatsoever? I really doubt that.

As a gay man in America, I usually feel like I have 7/8 full citizenship. That's more than "no civil rights", but it is hardly a satisfactory situation. It's also an unnecessary situation, as all the anti-GLBT laws are derived from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims stoking up hate. This is America, so the Bible and the Koran should not be considered when making secular law. Sadly, they often are.

Let me get this straight - you are an American citizen but have no civil rights? As an American, The Constitution guarantees you have the same civil rights as every other citizen. Just because you don't get what you want or can't do what you want to does not mean you have no civil rights.

Ray: The LGBT has fewer civil rights than the straights. It's as simple as that. We don't have the right to marry (in most states), we don't have to right to serve in the military without having to go "deep cover" 24/7 (straights are allowed to say "my wife and I went to the movies", for example. Gays can't). There are 1,300+ rights that straights have that gays don't.

#20.4 that is because you are a fringe group or a defective part of society that does not have anymore rights because you are different. You have to conform to normality for those rights. Get it?

Liberal states give you some special rights because there is enough people there that could care less about right and wrong and they want your money and votes. I would suggest you stay there.

The military does not want anyone who does not conform or who stirs up problems. Open gayness will cause many problems. I spent 24 years in, I know. I have heard all of your arguments and they don't float. Leave the military to the military, it is not a social club.

Coolhand: Fortunately fir you, bigotry and intolerance are social norms, so you fit right in.

Coolhand:

"You have to conform to normality for those rights."

Actually, no a person doesn't. That's what documents like the Constitution are for. They are to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. It is to prevent mob rule. I understand this is taking place in the UK, but the same logic applies.

"Liberal states give you some special rights because there is enough people there that could care less about right and wrong and they want your money and votes. I would suggest you stay there."

I live in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal. We were the first state to pass it. And you know, we haven't sunk into moral depravity. Our state has not been overrun by demons, our children are not running wild with no sense of right and wrong, and all other marriages are still just as valid as they were before the passing of this legislation. Weird, huh?

"The military does not want anyone who does not conform or who stirs up problems. Open gayness will cause many problems. I spent 24 years in, I know. I have heard all of your arguments and they don't float. Leave the military to the military, it is not a social club."

I asked my nephew who is in the Marines and three of his buddies (two Marine and one Navy), and they all said they had no problem with someone who is openly gay being in their platoon or barracks. They said as long as the guy can watch their backs in combat, they didn't care. So not all servicemen think as you do.

So all this complaining is because you are not allowed to go to the movies? I see now how you can easily draw comparisons to the Civil Rights era when blacks had no rights. I can see the parallel of your struggle how they try to kill you for eating lunch or coming in the front door. All the jobs that you cant get simply by the way you look! Its a travesty.

Rick: you don't read very well, do you? I wasn't griping about going to the movies. I was stating that GLBT soldiers must live in a constant state of self-censorship that it not required of heterosexual soldiers.

#20.7 You mean MA has not sunk any lower. Boston is known as a gay college town and the state is laughed at by the majority of the rest of the states.

You give 3rd handed information about 3 people. In 24 years I knew hundreds and lived the situations. Leave DADT to those who know best and that is the military not a bunch of activist and gay wanna bees.

The majority rule thing and the conformity thing also prevents a few weird freaks from changing laws that do not make sense for a group. In this case the country does not want Gay marriage but a few states might allow it if the voters in that state want it. This is not a life and death thing or even an essential part of life, this is gays trying to bully their way to equality.

20.6 fortunately for you they don't burn witches anymore, not that I condone violence or would ever do anything like that but I'm just saying.

Cool hand,

Wow thank you for giving me something to laugh at....

1) If you are the poster child for normalcy then you've encouraged many people on this forum to not conform

2) Someone needs to read the constitution before deciding who it applies to. And while you're at it learn percentages, so next time they show who voted for what you will get a better picture of majority vs minority. winning by 5% isn't a landslide incase you didn't notice....

3) Yes I am sure MA is such a joke that applications for MIT and Harvard will take a dive any time now. You should hold your breath and see!

4) You make it sound like people who are openly gay are too incompetant to shoot a gun and protect our country. Unless their sex drive is scientifically proven to be higher than yours I don't think screwing will be on their minds during combat. And if that is "normal" for you then I beg you to go AWOL!

The only thing that will change by letting gays in the military is that there will be a few more people who WON'T find you attractive!!!

Coolhand:

"You mean MA has not sunk any lower. Boston is known as a gay college town and the state is laughed at by the majority of the rest of the states."

You're right, all of the kids are fighting to get into those Ivy League schools because MA is such a laughing stock. You're right. Sorry that our progressive attitude towards equal rights makes you so insecure. I may not agree with all liberal ideas that are passed in Massachusetts, but this is definitely one I agree with.

"You give 3rd handed information about 3 people. In 24 years I knew hundreds and lived the situations. Leave DADT to those who know best and that is the military not a bunch of activist and gay wanna bees."

So your third hand information is more valuable than my third hand information. Well done.

"The majority rule thing and the conformity thing also prevents a few weird freaks from changing laws that do not make sense for a group. In this case the country does not want Gay marriage but a few states might allow it if the voters in that state want it. This is not a life and death thing or even an essential part of life, this is gays trying to bully their way to equality."

Since when should someone in this country have to "bully" their way to equal rights? I'm pretty sure our Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the country. I thought after women's suffrage and the civil rights movement that we'd be past this. But I guess some people will always live in the past.

It sounds like you've been burnt...or maybe you think you've been burnt. However, even if you never marry you are still responsible for supporting any children you bring into the world. And would you want your child to do without his or her necessities? I would hope not. I know women who have to pay child support to their ex-husbands, so it is not a gender bias...it's what's in the best interest of the child / children. If you don't want that responsibility, why not just get a vasectomy? It's no big deal and you never have to worry about it again.

SWM - you can thank all the rotten men that came before you for the state of our courts favoring women over men, and really sticking it to men on child support.

When my mom left my dad when I was 2, because he was an abusive alcoholic, my mom attempted to get any sort of support for us...and was told by the courts "if you can find him and bring him here, we'll help you out".

Im sorry things suck so bad for men now, but its called karma...women had it much worse before, having no one on their side and all the burdens of child rearing.

Im not saying things are perfect, or cant get better...what im saying is, STFU because its not nearly as bad as it was for women. Not that I expect you to care or even grasp that reality, men rarely do understand the concept of fairness.

That said, any many who truly wants to be in his childs life has all the means and ability to prove his value and worth in a court. I know many men personally who've gained full custody of their children...its really not as rare as you think, I think most men just dont care all that much. Or rather, truly enjoy their limited duties and will high five the idea of only 2 weekends a month and although, not so much the handing over of their money to raise a child their sperm created.

SWM:

"Why should the man automatically be assumed to be an ogre and pay child support?? Equal shared time = zero child support and equal responsibilities. In America, it's very simple. A wife, and having a child with her, is a LIABILITY and not an asset. Young men, beware. You will get raked over the coals worse in America than any other country on the planet."

Actually, not all men are required to pay child support. Whoever is the non-custodial parent pays child support. Typically, the mother is awarded custody because most of the time, she is the primary caregiver. However, in the case of my brother in law (who was married to a woman and had a child, then divorced and married my sister later), he has custody of their daughter. The mother is a drug addict who has been in and out of prison. She has to pay child support to him. Not that she's paid a dime, but the state is chasing her down to get it from her.

Point is, it's not always the male that has to pay child support with no custody.

Custody is not always determined fairly, I'll grant you that. There typically is a bias towards the mother. My brother in law had to fight tooth and nail to get full custody with no visitation rights with her mother, even though she had been in prison and convicted on drug charges. It still wasn't easy for him, even in case where it should have been.

SWM, I totally agree with about equal time with the children, or as near to equal as is practical. Children desperately need both parents. However, you seem confused about common law marriages. When you are in a common law marriage, you are considered as married as anyone else. The exact same laws apply, and if you divorce, you must go through the exact same procedure. The only difference is the absence of a marriage certificate.

And Jessica, it's reprehensible to bring up "karma", which BTW in the Hindu religion attaches to INDIVIDUALS, not groups. Do you think, for example, that all southern white slaveholders should have been enslaved to their former slaves just to even the score? Or that Japan should drop a nuclear weapon on Los Angeles? Actually women have had the advantage in custody matters for 100 years. It was even enshrined into law: the so-called tender years doctrine.

Unless your ex-sister-in-law was abusive to the CHILDREN, she should have visitation rights, BTW. Even supervised visitation would be better than nothing. As someone that has worked for a CPS agency, I can tell you kids love their parents and don't understand concepts like "this person isn't a good influence." Instead they are going to think, "My mommy doesn't love me enough to see me, so there must be something wrong with ME."

Oom:

"Unless your ex-sister-in-law was abusive to the CHILDREN, she should have visitation rights, BTW."

She did have visitation rights, but when they found out she had a convicted pedophile in her house and drugs out where my niece could get them, they took her rights away. She's forbidden contact with my niece until she turns 18. My brother in law was very forgiving to his ex-wife, and tried to give her visitation even when the courts recommended against it, but the pedophile was the last straw for him. After that, he fought to have her visitation taken away until my niece turns 18 and can make the choice herself.

Christine:

"Just because they are letting gay couples have civil ceremonies why does some straight couple have to fight for the same thing!"

Because everyone should have the same rights. Gay, straight, or whatever. Their point is if gay people can do it, they should be able to as well, and vice versa.

Christine - Newsflash, marriage and civil unions ARENT the same thing...otherwise, there'd be no need to have 2 seperate insitutions that result in the same thing, now would there?

go ahead, think about that for a bit...its not the gender that defines the difference, its the legal rights and benefits tangled up in the whole shebang.

why does some straight couple have to fight for the same thing?

because, not allowing gay marriages is sex discrimination. also, not allowing heterosexuals to be legally recognized as a couple without forcing a religious institution like marriage on them is a violation of separation of church and state and civil liberties. the government has no right to tie legal recognition with religious ceremonies, plain and simple, because that is government promoting religion

Amen to that, Mateo. That's what I've said for a long time, and it's why the argument of "civil unions are just the same as marriages, so why are gays pushing for marriage" is so specious. If the laws in this country could be changed to make civil unions the vehicle for conferring legal rights and obligations - and that includes the obligations that come with a divorce, by the way - and "marriages" just the way to confirm the commitment "in the eyes of God", we'd be much better off.

WGAF??????????????????????????????????????????

Well, you commented here, so apparently YOU GAF.

No, they do want to get married...just like gay people do.

Except, they wont let us...and these fine people are making a political point about how stupid all this is. Seperate is NEVER equal.

this is not a gay argument. dont make it one

god Jessica, perhaps you have no concept of marriage outside the context of your parents. marriage of some form is practiced various throughout time, in many cases, the King or Lord's permission was required - and often only given after the Lord has slept with the prospective bride, in many cases, the parents dictate the union; obviously in western societies, there is a historical meaning to the terms. "Civil Unions" are a means of breaking with a tradition which fails to treat genders equally.

Actually, the things you describe have little or nothing to do with gender equality and everything to do with CLASS equality.

Sensible conservatives like myself do NOT want to end all so-called "gender inequality" in marriage because there's nothing equal about treating people in different situations identically. Men don't get pregnant, don't breastfeed, rarely sacrifice any part of their careers to the needs of their children. If anything, quite the reverse; they willingly take on more hours and responsibilties at work. Very few mothers of young children are available for overtime, travel, etc. This makes their situations VERY unequal, and it is one reason no fault unilateral divorce puts women in such a precarious state. (Yes, I know, most divorces are initiated by the woman, but how many truly undersand what they are getting themselves and their children into)?

If the genders are to be considered absolutely equal, then no mother can DARE be a SAHM, even for a few years. No woman can even safely follow her hubby to a new city if his job transfers him, because she might have trouble finding an equivalent new position for herself. Do you see the nightmares all this gets into? Let's stop lying. Men and women are of equal worth and equal capabilities for any job that doesn't require physical strength, but we are NOT literally "equal" in all ways. That's why we women fought, successfully, to kill the Equal Rights Amendment.