The
public looks on while the New Jersey legislature votes to approve civil
unions.
Following a directive from the state's
highest court to create marriage rights or the equivalent thereof for gays, the
New Jersey legislature passed a bill yesterday legalizing civil unions. The
governor is expected to sign it.
"According to the New Jersey bill, two people who enter into a civil union 'shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.'" (See Story on CNN)
There's no question that this is a huge win, and that gay people will benefit from the bill in all kinds of real-life ways (hospital visitation, adoption, matters of property, etc.).
It's also a loss. A slap-down. A not-so-subtle message sent to gays that we deserve some rights and protections, but we shouldn't start thinking that, you know, our relationships matter as much as those of REAL married people.
Hetero love = 1st class.
Homo love = 2nd class.
Please step to the back of the bus.
9 comments:
Well Folks At the very least...a step in the right direction! Its an admission that there has been some major infringements on the rights of gay America. Why should this have ever become a subject up for discussion? Most major corporations have recognized cohabitating partners when determining elidgability for things such as bereavement pay and dispersment of benefits and stock. Why cant we just run this country like a good business and be done with it! Its a sad day when American companies dont discriminate as much as our own government!
I personally don't see gays as ever having the back of the bus. Marriage has traditionally, and in most cultures around the world (there was exceptions) been between a man and a women. I think civil unions will work because I think it's discrimination if gays have rights of benefits, and two sisters living together don't get those same rights. So you are telling me that JUST because you are having sex with the same gender, you deserve benefits. What if I'm living with my sister, we have a relationship, and maybe we're raising my children or her children or both, and need family insurance, and we can't get it because we aren't in a a relationship of the same emotional and sexual nature as gays? I think civil unions are great, and should be extended to family members living together, roomates that want to file for a civil union, etc. It's either this or do away with marriage altogether.
Hi,
I am a member of a group on Care2 called : adopt a needy family for christmas
This group was set up in order that people would join & help needy families with a few toys for their children for Christmas.
So far 50 families or so have been adopted & have received some help, but there are many more who are still left hoping. We need a miracle AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT. The Appeal will close in next couple of days whilst after that it will become too late to send vouchers & things out via post.
I am therefore wondering as to whether there be any chance that ANYONE might wish to chip in - no matter how little - just to try & bring a smile to a few more childrens faces this xmas.
I am NOT going to put a pay-pal link in this email, because I feel that such would be most INAPPROPRIATE, and would make it seem as though it was `me` who was begging. On the contrary I merely ask that people might consider the few minutes it will take to join Care2 and check out this group for yourselves. Details below.
Many Blessings to everyone.
DETAILS ;
Join Care2 here : http://www.care2.com/
GROUP :
With christmas ( winter holidays) around the corner, I thought a group offering a hand up to needy children would be a good idea. Stop in and see if you can help someone in need with the holidays.
Members: 198 Code of Conduct
Visibility: open
Membership: open
Group Email: christmas@groups.care2.com
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/christmas
[ send green star] [ flag for review
i think they are lucky to get on the bus
I'm confused. If it has all the benifits of marriage...then why not just call it Marriage? It's the same bloody thing if the same benifits apply. The whole point of a civil union is to give SOME of the benifits of marriage to a pair of person who are simply entering into a legal contract. If a civil union contains ALL the benifits of marriage, then it isn't a civil union...it's a MARRIAGE. Demoting the mere title of it to Civil Unions because it's a pair of people of the same gender is a complete stab in the wrong direction and is an insult to the gay community. This is just another case of some group's religious views getting in the way of what is fair and just for all members of society. kidzpastor35's comments are incredibly ignorant. Civil unions, I agree, should be used between other couples like they suggested (sisters living together, roomates etc.) because a civil union is simply a legal contract between two concenting parties. But there is far more involved in actual marriage. Marriage is the the choice of two romanticly involved people who wish to share their lives together. kidzpastor35's comment implies that loving, long term gay couples are simply roomates who sleep together. I agree with kidzpastor35 on one point though: if people continue THAT attitude, we should just get rid of the idea of marriage all together and just give every married couple a civil unions. After all, even straight roomates can screw each other.
Personally I like the whole idea from the John Stamos movie...
GAYS ON STRIKE - if we can't get married, neither can you. Cause without us, there'll be no one to help you make it happen.
Calling it a "civil union" for gays instead of "marriage' segregates the participants in a way that could open the door for future discrimination. Family members already have rights that are not available to people who aren't related by blood. Marriage is a contractual way to make NON-family members next of kin. I would be happy with calling the civil contract a "civil union" for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. The term "marriage" or "holy matrimony" could be conferred by the church of one's choice (if one chooses), but would be a religious affirmation carrying no legal rights. But rewriting the laws to address these semantic problems is not a profitable use of a legislatures time. The alternative is to call everything that carries all of the rights of marriage รค "marriage" regardless of gender of the gender of the participants. Then all marriage laws and any changes in marriage laws would equally affect both gay and heterosexual marriages.
To mccotter3057 re: "I think they are lucky to get on the bus."
No doubt you would have relished denying Rosa Parks HER seat.
How to spot a gay person in the crowd of ............That would be the person who has the most intelligent, and enlightened comments. Stay away from the uncreative people who are totally incapable of an original thought of their own, that have to reference a book written over a thousand years ago, and they can't even think in terms of human decency. They have to hang out with groups of like minded biggots, because it is easier to criticize others and implant your will on to all of society, that way. The people in the crowd that have no common sense, nor any true moral fiber...they would be straight, or politically in the closet, in order to manipulate others into funding their hidden agendas. I am lesbian, the way GOD intended me to be, and I thank GOD for my enlightenment, because I was not taught, educated or even give a choice. So I would like to know what short sighted, uneducated moron came up with the idea that homosexuals have a choice. By the way almost all pedophiles that I am aware are educated theologically back to that thousand year old book again. Ipersonally would be more up for a civil union than to be connected to any group I mentioned above.
Didn't we try Seperate but Equal once before in American history????
Post a Comment