Skip to main content

View Diary: Why The Word Marriage Matters (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except that they're not (8+ / 0-)

    "Legally equivalent," I mean. The IRS doesn't care that you're in a civil union at tax time. Except in very rare cases, insurance companies won't care, period. Try using that civil union certificate when you have to make healthcare decisions for your partner and some officious snot doesn't even want to let you into the treatment room, much less listen to your opinion.

    •  Well I have an IRS problem as well (0+ / 0-)

      since to them I'm single. I'm not happy about it, but like I said, the nation has far bigger problems.

      But this is an IRS problem that has to be fixed at the federal level. Get Obama in office and there will be means to get the IRS to recognize civil unions. Keep a Republican and they will figure out a way to screw you regardless of what California says.

      Civil unions have precisely been crafted to deal with the healthcare issues you raise. If there is a problem, either the civil union law is weak, or the health provider is in for a nasty and deserved lawsuit.

      Or, if you are in a another, non-CU state, not even the marriage certificate will be recognized. I think we are better off with CUs in all 50 states and federally recognized, than marriage in 20 states and no federal recognition.

      Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

      by M Aurelius on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're single by choice (3+ / 0-)

        I'm told by law that I can't be married. That's a huge difference.

        And no one is suggesting that we should make striking down asinine bans against gay marriage the top priority of government--just that we do so when the occasion affords itself, as it has here.

        And if you'd been paying attention (or were a member of the LGBT community), you'd know that civil unions don't mean squat when you're faced with homophobic medical staff--or if you happen to live in most of the United States where no such options are available. Try getting a Vermont civil union recognized in Mississippi someday.

        •  And? (0+ / 0-)

          I could say: Try getting a Massachusetts marriage recognized in Mississippi someday.

          Sounds to me like the problem is Mississippi, not the value of civil unions.

          you'd know that civil unions don't mean squat when you're faced with homophobic medical staff

          Well, if the staff is homophobic enough to break the law with civil unions, I'm not sure why you assume they would suddenly become compliant with marriages.

          And no one is suggesting that we should make striking down asinine bans against gay marriage the top priority of government

          It's a presidential election year. I saw how this issue was used in 2004, and I don't want to see it again. If we get another Republican in the White House, you will never see a LGBT-friendly court in your lifetime, unless you are awfully young.

          Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

          by M Aurelius on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Compare to interracial marriage (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, BentLiberal

            When the state of California legalized them - and they were the first to do it, by the way - around 90% of the people polled were against legalization. By the time the US Supreme Court got around to it, most states outside of the South had also legalized interracial marriage. People having interracial marriages was part of what swung that balance around to their favor.

            People being legally married in same-sex marriages in Massachusetts is having an effect. The effect of people being legally married in same-sex marriages in California will have an even greater impact. Where California goes, the nation follows.

            If you can't see that, you must not be paying attention.

            The truth shall make you free - but first it shall piss you off.

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:25:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows, Darmok

            It's a presidential election year. I saw how this issue was used in 2004, and I don't want to see it again.

            You saw how the Republican Party wanted it to be used. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable evidence that the gay marriage issue actually had any effect whatsoever on the 2004 election results.

            Well, if the staff is homophobic enough to break the law with civil unions, I'm not sure why you assume they would suddenly become compliant with marriages.

            Because marriages are legally recognized entities. Civil unions are not. And yes, that means one of the other tasks ahead of us is getting rid of DOMA and all the little state DOMAs that are out there. At which point, a Massachusetts marriage will mean something in Mississippi--or anywhere else. And LGBT folk in relationships with foreign nationals will be able to bring their partners to this country as easily as heterosexuals do their spouses now.

    •  You keep making me rec you.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BentLiberal

      ...stop that.  :P

      :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site