Gay Rights

I would like to know what RIGHTS are taken away from a couple in a civil union as opposed to a marriage.

All I read is rights are taken away. No one gives any examples.

The Constitution of the USA gives no rights regarding either. It states that any rights not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states.

Therefore, marriage is defined by the state, and more specifically, the people of the state.

The beauty of a Democratic Republic backed by the Constitution, is that if you do not agree with what the people have chosen for your state, you are free to move to a state that supports your views, or you can stay and try and gain support for your cause to get the law changed.

There is no RIGHTS issue involved. To compare it to the Civil Rights movements (black equality, women's equality, etc) is fallacy, and a disgrace to those movements.

You are fighting for BENEFITS, not RIGHTS. You are free to live as you choose. You are entitled to those rights. If you do not live as mainstream society lives, why do expect to have the same BENEFITS of mainstream society?




[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

I understand what you are saying and it is a good topic and will probably bring a lot of arguing to it. Hopefully not but... I live in Iowa were they just passed the same sex marriage law. I have no problems with it at all. I am not homosexual but really don't have a problem with people wanting to marry whoever they want to. Man+woman,man+man, women+Women,
I dont care if someone wants to marry a chicken, goat, donkey any other livestock or inanimate object.


It just isn't a big deal to me, it has no affect on me what so ever, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

It seems to me that it is just the religious folks that make a big deal over it, but I could be wrong on that, that is just how I have seen it.

Good topic S & F

Oh and just to add sorry I wondered off a bit on how I feel about it.
I see what you are saying about the right of being married as apposed to the benefit. I had never really thought of it that way. Good point. On paper all marriage is, is a legally binding contract. Thats it!

But in they eyes of the churches it has more of a meaning.

[edit on 5/26/2009 by pcgeek]

reply to post by xxpigxx


Well you might be surprised by my reply.

You are completely right. Upon further inspection of the issue, there is no actual "rights" that's being denied or removed from gay people with this decision. The law is left up to the states to deal with.

It's a matter of benefits, which I still think is an equality issue. Not a rights issue, I will give you that, but it is still morally wrong to deny benefits to one couple and give them to another, based solely on sexual orientation.

I hope that's something you agree with. The thought of oppresion and inequality among fellow Americans is kind of ridiculous. I mean if we look at these issues from a historical perspective, the constitution didn't say anything about marriage, so blacks couln't vote or get married, we had to "make" a law that allowed them to do so.

It's a matter of public understanding and respect for your fellow man. I can't really tell you what rights are being removed, because they aren't any.

I hope you can see our side of the argument however, we do have a valid point, there is no reason for this other than public opinion. And at a mere 52%, it's not a wide margin.

~Keeper

reply to post by pcgeek


Yeah I agree, everyone IS entitled to their own opinion. This subject does not effect me in anyway shape or form also.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Piranha]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Piranha]

It's unfortunate that one of the after-effects of government+religion years ago is coming back to haunt christians. Now, everyone can get "married", even if they aren't involved in the church, or are involved, but mould it to fit their particular outlook. Frankly, it's "sleeping in the bed you made", imo.
I'll bet somebody will come along and ask for the word "marriage" to be taken out of all statesponsored unions, so marriage can be a religious right and that's it. Then, all those who have "unions" are equal in benefits, etc, and all those who're married only do it because of their spiritual beliefs. That's too easy tho. Doesn't divide.

I think they are complaining for the sake of complaining. I have a few friends that are Gay, and you know what? whenever they bring up a subject like marriage, they just say, When i find the right person i'll fly to where ever we can get married and do just that.

Why can't they just be happy that they've found someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with, and do that? to find someone your truly in love with is a special thing, why ruin it by spending most of your lives fighting for a piece of paper, and the chance to blow 40 grand on a wedding?

If it mean's that much to you have a private ceremony, with close family and friends, and write up your own marriage certificate.

Like the OP said, you want BENEFITS, not RIGHTS. I don't see single people complaining that they don't get the same RIGHTS as married people.... same thing in my mind...

Cherry

Who cares? Gays shouldn't be denied benefits either just because they're gay. It's ridiculous.

Interesting... I was just talking with a friend on this a few hours ago.

There have been a number of cases where a same-sex partner has been denied access to a loved one when that loved one has become ill and taken to the hospital.

In the same situation, a spouse would be granted access.

So... Is it a right to be with the one you love at a moment when they need you most...?

Here are some rights denied a couple with a civil union that hetero married people take for granted.There are 1,400 of those rights married hetero couples HAVE that are DENIED gay couples.Marriage establishes a legal *kinship* between you and your spouse.Kinship is recognized in all states, all countries and is recognized in religious organizations.A civil union does not confer kinship..You are not really kin in a civil union. So,you are denied the rights of kin :Civil Unions are not recognized as a by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.Here are some more of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
There are 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
And so Gays and Lesbians and Transgender people are by the rules written by bigots and religious fanatics now second class citizens.This is against the constitution..
This is what the constitution says about theocracies.It forbids it.
Amendment 1:Congress shall make *no law* respecting* an establishment of *religion,*(It says religion NOT christianity) or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitionthe Government for a redress of grievances.
To establish a secular government, free of the problems of religious violence,christian bigotry that was inflicted on European nations. Why does the christian Right work so hard to undermine and undo what America's founders accomplished?

The 14th amendment ended declaring of one class of citizen has full rights,while others are declared less than citizens and denied the rights of full citizens.
Amendment 14 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; *nor deny to any person* within its jurisdiction the *equal protection* of the laws.
The 14th Amendment (1868) guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to *all* Americans, with the special intention of protecting the rights of former slaves. The 15th Amendment (1870) provided that voting rights of citizens “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,etc. Prop 8 is legalizing bigotry against gays as far as I am concerned,and it is wrong to deny equal rights to all citizens it includes non-christians and GBLT.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
I would like to know what RIGHTS are taken away from a couple in a civil union as opposed to a marriage.

The RIGHTS these individuals want is for two tax paying consenting adults to have the rights to marry regardless of sexuality. Two adults, who cannot change who they are, just like everybody else, who wish to have the rights like ever other american citizen.

The only issue cited regarding gay marriage are religious, and religion has no place in law, especially when it discrimminates against american citizens,tax paying american citizens like the TEABAGGERS citing the rights directly given by the constitution.

The Constitution of the USA gives no rights regarding either. It states that any rights not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states.

Exactly and one by one these states are making that decision. That being said gay marriage is only cited as a threat for religious purposes in which it has no business in the laws of the land in anycase. No laws should discrimminate against american citizens on the basis of religion. No evidence find that gay marriage will effect anybody or any other marriages any differently. The churches will have rights to refuse to hold these marriages because they are private gathering institutions, and doctors who do not wish to treat gay couples are more than welcome to leave to join christian/catholic specific hospitals, which is their right.

Therefore, marriage is defined by the state

Yes and one by one its becoming more so. New York and New Hampshire are heading that way, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii are well on their way. Iowa will not be the last state in the midwest I assure you.

You see if anything this gay marriage debate has revealed to me, is that conservatives, the same self proclaimed "flag waving constitutionalists" of 2003, will only see the constitution when it sees them fit, in reality its only about the term "constitution", not what it actually stands for to the same gun trodding "constitutionalists". The same flag waving hypocrites of 2003 are starting to show their true selves.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

The difference between what has been the real civil rights movement and the gay rights movement boils down to one distinct and undeniable fact.

a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Equal Pay Act, Title VII

The defined classes, a) race, b) color, c) religion, d) sex, and f) national origin are things that are for the most part outwardly visible and obvious.

If you are an African-American the color of your skin is undeniable. If you are a women, your gender is your gender. Even religion has certain obvious telltale signs such as a skull cap for Jews, a crucifix for Christians, a turban for Seiks.

Homosexuality isn't something obvious unless you make it obvious. It’s not fair to bunch homosexuality together with things that make you who you are like the color of your skin or your gender.

If a white guy is gay, but his employer doesn't know (and why should they know) there is nothing holding him back from being promoted and compensated like any other white male. We know that women are often compensated less for the same work, and African-Americans have had a history of being discriminated against in the work place and else where.

I have additional opinions as well. Often, homosexuality is described as sexual preference. Ordinarily, preference means choice, i.e. I have a preference for chocolate over vanilla. My question is: Is being gay a life style choice, a sexual preference or something else which makes it impossible to be attracted to the opposite sex.

In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

So, why was homosexuality reclassified and removed from the DSM-II? I personally think that it is because of political correctness.

Mental Disorder defined:

any illness with significant psychological or behavioral manifestations that is associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.

www.britannica.com...

One of the scientific criteria to be deemed a living organism rather than inorganic substances, e.g. viruses, is the capacity to reproduce.

Since a homosexual lifestyle - without cheating with a heterosexual person - prohibits reproduction, it could be deemed an impairment of an important area of functioning; therefore, could and should be classified as a mental disorder.

Flame away, but that is my view. I'm not religious, and I don't think it’s a "sin" to sleep with someone of the same sex. But if that’s what does it for you, doesn't mean I think it’s healthy.

For some people, their sexual preference is to be with children (pedophilia), or with cadavers (necrophilia), or with animals (Zoophilia). My question is what is the new normal, and when do we say that the person has a metal illness?

Don't give me the argument that it is two consenting adults. That doesn't change the fact that it is abhorrent behavior in an extreme minority of the population.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.

www.gallup.com...

If the 2000 census is right, how many of the 2-3% of the people are really homosexual where they really cannot be with a member of the opposite sex, and how many chose that lifestyle for whatever reason (being abused as a child, falling in with the wrong group, pop-culture).

Bottom line, lifestyle choices do not make for a protected class requiring the government to re-write the laws to protect them.

reply to post by underground panther in th


That whole list is not rights, it is benefits.

That is where the argument screws up.

Nowehre in the Constitution does it give you the RIGHT to any of those. The first ammendment does not even apply here.

___________________________________

As for unfair . . . you live your life outside of mainstream society, and want to claim what mainstream society has.

It is like a man living in the mountains in a log cabin, getting upset because he does not get inner city welfare.

I have no dog in the fight. I did not even vote when Texas voted on it, because I could care less about who does what with there lives. If you want to claim yourselves married, whatever. That is your choice, and if my state ever has another vote, and it passes . . . so be it. I have no issues whatsoever with gays wanting to be married. So you all can drop the homophobe religious nut argument right there. Am I a Christian? Yes. Do I think gayness is a sin? Yes. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I HATE THEM OR WISH ILL WILL ON THEM. I am a Christian. They are people, just like I am. My God says to love everyone. I believe that God even loves gay people (John 3:16 - For God so loved THE WORLD), he just can't stand their sin, according to His word. Just like I love my children, even when they disobey me. I get after them, and I hate what they did, and that they disobeyed me . . . but I still love them dearly.

I am not here proseletyzing. Just showing you where I stand.


I am fine with how people choose to live their lives, even if I do not agree with it. But when people start crying about supposed RIGHTS, it gets to me, because there are no RIGHTS that are being infringed upon. There are benefits that are not given because they are not part of mainstream society.

And, if it would have gone the other way in CA, and the otherside was crying about it, I would argue this point as well: The people decided the definition of marriage, and it was Constitutionally sound. In fact, I think the issue of abortion should be handeled the same way.



[edit on 27/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

I don't mean to generalize, but another ATS poster once posted in another post: "The people here are all gay-hating, gun-toting, government-hating conservatives."

VERY EXTREME, and I KNOW not everyone dislikes gays or want no rights for them, but here's my two cents.

1) It is clear that you find that taking away your legal ownership for guns = taking away your rights, but taking away legal marriage contract = NOT taking away rights. You might say guns = something substantial but some people live without guns, but some cannot. Just as some people live without the legal binding of a marriage, some might really WANT it on paper to be proud of who they are.

Of course, you can argue that gun rights is mentioned in the Second Amendment, but isn't it a bit too horrible to base everything purely on "What's in the consitution?"

I know people who have told me how they felt: They felt discriminated. They were "a couple", "holding hands", but when they told people they wanted to get married people laughed. Sure, they could have flown out to Maine or New Hampshire, but why can't they just be accepted in their own state? What if the marriage is "not valid" in their state?

I'm not gay, and I'm not going to jump into this fight head-on, but I think that to some people, they really want this a lot. I think it would pain me too if I can't get my relationship with the one I love on paper. And sure, you might find what they're looking for is "benefits" (and there are a lot apparently) but if you want to give them benefits you should give them "rights".

"Rights", after all, is privilege, and I absolutely think our beautiful USA should grant EVERYONE equal rights. Rights is who we are. Just as I don't think guns should be banned, neither should gay marriage. You might find fallacies with that, yadda yadda yadda, but ultimately both are concerned with "ownership", "protection against life's problems" and "rights".

Also, if you say you have "nothing against gay marriage", why is this post up? Are you finding fault with the gay couples who fight for their right to marry? Why are you not finding fault with the pro-family groups who fight back and disallow them those rights? Is it because you're pro family? Clearly. But I'm not gay, and family is important to me, and I have a problem with OPPOSITION.

I'm here on ATS because I do not like and approve of OPPOSITION. Gay couples want to get married, and here Christian groups OPPOSE them. It's not like these couples were opposing against something. If they want to do it, I say by all means LET THEM. No one gets hurt anyway! All that happens is some minor psychological repercussion that everyone philosophizes about.

If the rights will get them the benefits, I'm all for gay marriage. Also, it is clear you have something against them - if not, this post would not be up in the first place. Please stop judging. It's not easy, definitely, being gay, too.

WE ARE ALL HOMO SAPIENS.

PEACE.

(And pls do not prove that other ATS poster correct.)

Also, note this is about gay marriage rights - it's not about being gay.

Hence, denial of gay marriage rights DOES equal denial of black rights and DOES equal denial of woman rights. Because marriage should be brought out into the open, and not hidden under a blanket. If you're gay, people can't tell, sure. But if you're gay and attached - yes, people CAN tell. "That guy's behavin' weird." OR "Did you see the photo on his desk? They were KISSING!" Sure, you can hide that, but WHY MUST YOU? And bravo for you if you won't treat this guy any differently, but like blacks and women, there ARE bound to be some racist/sexist/"sexualist" people who will deny them pay and the rightful work benefits BECAUSE they are who they are!

Recently my lecturer accidentally let loose the fact he had a boyfriend. Boy, was there a hoohah. He could have hid it - but why should he? Although being black and being a woman = exposing your discriminatory aspect for all to see 24/7, being gay = exposing your discriminatory quality for all to see maybe 16/5 or 19/6. Plus if you're a couple... boy, will you get stares.

From the people who "find it weird".

OUCH!

[edit on 27-5-2009 by KarlG]

Originally posted by KarlG
1) It is clear that you find that taking away your legal ownership for guns = taking away your rights, but taking away legal marriage contract = NOT taking away rights. You might say guns = something substantial but some people live without guns, but some cannot. Just as some people live without the legal binding of a marriage, some might really WANT it on paper to be proud of who they are.

I think the OP already made this clear, but he is arguing from the point of the Constitution, not his own beliefs (which may coincide, but that's not the point). Gun rights and marriage rights are apples and oranges when looking at the Constitution. It really is up to the states on marriage rights, and so far every time it's been put up for vote it's been denied. Public opinion wants marriage to be between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists should get their head out of the sand and quit pursuing it - go for improved civil union benefits.

Gay rights are ignored because of one single, stand alone reason. RELIGION!! Bible thumpers would have a copper canary if gays were getting the same rights as their blessed holy union.

Its hatefull, its predjudice, its supremist and its WRONG!! These people are people too and deserve to live the same quality of life as anyone else. We need to stop judging people based on beliefs and lifestyle choices. Its saddening, disheartening and sickening that this is even a topic of discussion.

Shame on those who want to abolish gay rights, shame on those who don't think they deserve the same happiness as everyone else. Who are you to judge you self rightous, self serving arrogant F*CKS. GET A GODDAMN life and worry about you and yours and no one else.

Originally posted by stereovoyaged
Gay rights are ignored because of one single, stand alone reason. RELIGION!! Bible thumpers would have a copper canary if gays were getting the same rights as their blessed holy union.

Its hatefull, its predjudice, its supremist and its WRONG!! These people are people too and deserve to live the same quality of life as anyone else. We need to stop judging people based on beliefs and lifestyle choices. Its saddening, disheartening and sickening that this is even a topic of discussion.

Shame on those who want to abolish gay rights, shame on those who don't think they deserve the same happiness as everyone else. Who are you to judge you self rightous, self serving arrogant F*CKS. GET A GODDAMN life and worry about you and yours and no one else.

I agree that religion has a lot to do with it, but seriously, aren't you living in a country who's pledge of allegiance has the words `under god'..... so please explain to me, you want to live in a christian based country.... and you want the right to go against that pledge.....

Maybe they should think of moving. You say, shame on those who don't think homosexuals deserve the same happiness as everyone else? They do deserve happiness, but what you need to understand that many christians, like myself, would see that passing this law would be like giving them a ticket to hell, and throwing in a free drink. I'm not a bible basher, and no, i don't go to church every sunday, but the reason we think these things, or at least christians who are preaching through love, not hate, is because we LOVE these people, and in no way would we try to HELP them sin, we want to help them so that hopefully someday they will stand at the pearly gates.

You say that christians are self serving, and that is just not true. True christians, try to help EVERYONE.

I do understand that there are some people out there that take it way to far, and instead of trying to help they condemn homosexuals, which i think is wrong. These people need us, and i also think that they need to understand where alot of us are coming from.

In Australia
Cherry Duck

Edit to add: In my opinion homosexuals are not looking for rights, they are looking for special treatment. A gay woman has the same rights as a straight woman, the right to marry a man.




[edit on 27/5/09 by CherryDuck]

Originally posted by CherryDuck
... but seriously, aren't you living in a country who's pledge of allegiance has the words `under god'..... so please explain to me, you want to live in a christian based country.... and you want the right to go against that pledge.....

A wee bit off topic but I want you to grasp the fact that that slogan was not placed there originally. That factions - like the ones who rammed through and still ram though choices for the rest of us.

Many of us know that this is part of their efforts to tear down, systematically, the government concepts the USA started out with.

reply to post by pcgeek


If it is just religious folks why do man and woman get married and not just shack up?

reply to post by ThePiemaker


The good news they can not breed