Can anybody tell me the difference between civil unions and the ability to "enter into a legal contract and exchange powers of attorney" - the former of which McCain has explicitly stated he is against, but is in support of the latter? In my vague understanding, marriage > civil unions > legal contracts when it comes to domestic partner benefits and stuff. If anybody can provide me with a chart or list comparing the legal benefits granted under each circumstance, that would be a nice bonus.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
John McCain and Civil Unions
- Thread starter Lv99Slacker
- Start date
There are literally hundreds of state and federals rights that are conferred by marriage.
The only way a civil union can provide those rights is if the legislature says that civil unions are equivalent to marriage and grant the same rights.
But some people don't think even this works. New Jersey is reconsidering its civil unions law, because it appears that people in civil unions are still being denied equal rights. New Jersey may have to approve a gay marriage bill to bring couples equality.
And that still wouldn't grant them any federal rights.
With regard to McCain's contract suggestion, it would take dozens of legal contracts (and tons of money) just to ensure that a couple have some legal rights without civil unions or marriage. Many of the laws prohibit couples' rights outside of marriage, e.g. state and federal tax laws, adoption rights, etc.
Some states have passed legislation prohibiting same sex couples from even acquiring some basic rights through legal contracts. (Virginia)
So, McCain is full of bullshit on this issue.
What drives me the craziest is that people who know them say that neither Bush nor McCain give a shit about gay marriage, but they have to appease the religious right or lose elections. They're both hypocrites.
The only way a civil union can provide those rights is if the legislature says that civil unions are equivalent to marriage and grant the same rights.
But some people don't think even this works. New Jersey is reconsidering its civil unions law, because it appears that people in civil unions are still being denied equal rights. New Jersey may have to approve a gay marriage bill to bring couples equality.
And that still wouldn't grant them any federal rights.
With regard to McCain's contract suggestion, it would take dozens of legal contracts (and tons of money) just to ensure that a couple have some legal rights without civil unions or marriage. Many of the laws prohibit couples' rights outside of marriage, e.g. state and federal tax laws, adoption rights, etc.
Some states have passed legislation prohibiting same sex couples from even acquiring some basic rights through legal contracts. (Virginia)
So, McCain is full of bullshit on this issue.
What drives me the craziest is that people who know them say that neither Bush nor McCain give a shit about gay marriage, but they have to appease the religious right or lose elections. They're both hypocrites.
Very True! But then we're at the same argument...In the US ALL marriage is a civil union. The state allows the religious organization to perform the ceremony but it is at it's root a civil contract (one that needs to be shared with gay and lesbian couples as well)
Therefore Sen Obama saying that he supports civil unions but not marriage for same sex couples makes him full of shit too!
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
^^^ Exactly. Does anyone remember when he was for a full complete withdrawl of the troops? He backed off that shit when it got general and he will back of Unions because they dont work. Just like DADT didnt work.
construct
The boy next door
The most obvious problem with the contract option is the expense. It amounts to economic injustice. You can get a basic set of documents around here for about $1200. A marriage license in Texas is (I think) $71. A civil union would cost about the same as a marriage license.
But less a lot less full of shit than McCain.
McCain endorsed the failed Arizona voter initiative that would have banned not only gay marriage, but also gay civil unions.
Obama opposes the California anti-gay marriage initiative. McCain supports it. Get the picture?
http://obama.3cdn.net/c97fcbdd343527466b_u5m6bt5hr.pdf
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7c073b7316f922514_q6m6y7so7.pdf
http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf
Glafna
Beware.. Opinionated
Honestly, your doing exactly what most other Americans are doing... you're wanting him to do what's best for you, but not necessarily the country.
From what I can tell, the US public is not ready for gay marriage, because there are still the years of anti-gay propaganda still rooted in, with the elderly who are "old-school" and with the younger who share the feeling their parents, or in a lot of cases, their president, do.
I think it's probably best to drop the gay marriage thing for the moment, because there's a hell of a lot more you need to worry about. Like McCain being a Bushite, giving another 4 years of those policies, then theirs the threat of terrorism, although not as strong as the government is playing it, it's still there, then there's the obvious feeling in the Muslim community that America only has it's own best interests in mind overseas, and of course we can't forget the socially bankrupt countries of Iran(for their antiquated policies involving everything) and China(for their flagrant disrespect of basic human rights and care for their own citizens).
When you look at the big picture, gay marriage is pretty small on the radar.
From what I can tell, the US public is not ready for gay marriage, because there are still the years of anti-gay propaganda still rooted in, with the elderly who are "old-school" and with the younger who share the feeling their parents, or in a lot of cases, their president, do.
I think it's probably best to drop the gay marriage thing for the moment, because there's a hell of a lot more you need to worry about. Like McCain being a Bushite, giving another 4 years of those policies, then theirs the threat of terrorism, although not as strong as the government is playing it, it's still there, then there's the obvious feeling in the Muslim community that America only has it's own best interests in mind overseas, and of course we can't forget the socially bankrupt countries of Iran(for their antiquated policies involving everything) and China(for their flagrant disrespect of basic human rights and care for their own citizens).
When you look at the big picture, gay marriage is pretty small on the radar.
construct
The boy next door
You are right that it is a rather marginal concern for most of the country, but three states have anti-marriage amendments on the ballot this fall. California is one of those states. The original poster is located in California. So its understandable that the issue is on his mind.
Further, McCain's contracts impose a significant burden on gay couples. Obama wants to lift that burden. So for some people, its an issue that might make a difference. So the explanation is, I think, worthwhile.
construct
The boy next door
He backtracked on that the next day in an e-mail from the campaign.
But the question has been answered. The contracts are expensive and only approximate some of the benefits of marriage. Civil unions are cheap and purport to grant all marital benefits and responsibilities under state law. McCain supports the contract approach. Obama supports the civil union approach. McCain supports the state amendments. Obama opposes the state amendments.
Just so I have this right...it's ok to put gay issues on the back burner (as usual with the Democrats) in order to do what they feel is in the best interest of the country (or as I believe in order to just get elected) but criticize gay Republicans because they see other issues of being a greater concern.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
Well said!
Given McCain's love of government power over individual rights, gay unions, no matter what you want to call them, are a distant second.
No, he isn't -- and the reason is in your second statement: "In the US ALL marriage is a civil union". That tells us the solution to this: drop the word "marriage" from all law, and replace it with "civil union" -- open to everyone and anyone who come to the government and say "we're united"; and the government would duly record that, whether it's a hetero couple, a same-sex couple, a threesome, or whatever. This is a matter of both religious freedom and freedom of association, and it should be dealt with on that constitutional basis.
So Obama is taking the correct first step.
Well said!
Given McCain's love of government power over individual rights, gay unions, no matter what you want to call them, are a distant second.
No, he isn't -- and the reason is in your second statement: "In the US ALL marriage is a civil union". That tells us the solution to this: drop the word "marriage" from all law, and replace it with "civil union" -- open to everyone and anyone who come to the government and say "we're united"; and the government would duly record that, whether it's a hetero couple, a same-sex couple, a threesome, or whatever. This is a matter of both religious freedom and freedom of association, and it should be dealt with on that constitutional basis.
So Obama is taking the correct first step.
Actually you would be correct if he had any intention of going that route. Or even made statements to that effect. He supports marriage but only between a man and a woman. And it does make him...well you know.
I have always said that gay marriage is the least of our concerns as a community, my point it that it is hypocritical to condem gay Republicans because they feel that there are other issues that are more important to them besides gay issues, and then do exactly the same when it is convientient.
I say if we're going to have "traditional marriage" we should have traditional marriage where the couple has NO say in the matter but it is in fact a contract to better the entire family's situation. You know like it was traditionally.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
Yeah, it makes him in opposition to the people who want gays to be a special interest and horn in on the current system of religious discrimination.
LOL
I like that.
Yes, probably for political expedience, Obama stops short of supporting gay marriage and yes, in black and white terms, that makes hin inconsistent on that point.
But that isn't a reason not to support him as the better of the two options by far.
Obama does otherwise advocate full equal rights for gay couples, has a very good record on gay issues and has a whole list of pro-gay goals.
McCain even opposed gay civil unions in the failed Arizona voter initiative, has a poor record on gay isses and has no pro-gay goals.
The further point that has been mentioned on this forum several times is that it isn't just about gay marriage or civil unions or even LGBT issues as such. But the way a candidate or a party deals with minority civil rights, which it doesn't agree with, tells you how they'll deal with a whole host of other issues.
Glafna
Beware.. Opinionated
When have I ever criticized gay Republicans for not talking about the issues involving the gay community?? OH, you mean when I called iman or chance out on the thread with the video montage of McCain's history of voting for anti-gay legislation? Which they deemed not to respond to.
Yes, the Democrats do what they can to get elected, their politicians, but so are the Republicans. So heres the main question.... would you rather have a party that gives you some rights, or a party that WILL take them away.
Glafna, I apologize if you felt that I was speaking to you specifically. I was speaking in a general sense on this forum. You can pick any number of threads on this forum condeming gay Repulicans (IE Log Cabins) for not putting gay issues into the forefront of their voting concerns. And they would be right to do that. The problem comes in when they then turn a 180 when it comes to Democrats putting the gay community on a back burner in order to get elected. Then as in many cases forgetting about us. It is hypocritical.
^ You clearly haven't bothered to read the threads or the links cocerned.
You're correct on the single issue of gay marriage, where Obama is inconsistent in talking about full equal rights for gay couples, but stops short of supporting gay marriage. His reasons for doing that are obvious, and realistic, but that doesn't make his position any more consistent.
Nonetheless, he, his wife and his campaign have reached out to gay voters on many different occasions and Obama has a list of promised action that is far from putting gay issues on the back burner.
Obama has even indicated his opposition to the anti-gay marriage voter initiative in California, which McCain supports, and he and Biden have a strong voting record on gay issues compared to McCain's.
You might argue that other issues are more of a priority to you than gay civil rights, but on gay issues there's little that's hypocritical in praising Obama and condemning McCain. Check your facts.
You're correct on the single issue of gay marriage, where Obama is inconsistent in talking about full equal rights for gay couples, but stops short of supporting gay marriage. His reasons for doing that are obvious, and realistic, but that doesn't make his position any more consistent.
Nonetheless, he, his wife and his campaign have reached out to gay voters on many different occasions and Obama has a list of promised action that is far from putting gay issues on the back burner.
Obama has even indicated his opposition to the anti-gay marriage voter initiative in California, which McCain supports, and he and Biden have a strong voting record on gay issues compared to McCain's.
You might argue that other issues are more of a priority to you than gay civil rights, but on gay issues there's little that's hypocritical in praising Obama and condemning McCain. Check your facts.
For more than 45 years the Democratic Party has been the intiator of almost all civil rights legislation at every level of government, whether it concerned racial minorities, women or the GLBT community.
During the same time period the Republican Party has opposed almost every piece of proposed civil rights legislation.
Gay Republicans need to be a bit more honest about the unwilingness of their party to support the wellbeing of anyone other than white upper middle class and wealthy people.