Gay marriage legalized!

Need to get something off of (or onto) your chest? Set it free!
The reason they were (we/everyone are) fighting for "marriage" is because in the states that allowed a "civil union" the rights were different. Even if you had a CU, you still couldn't declare your "spouse" as your next of kin, they couldn't make legal decisions, they couldn't sign forms when you were incapacitated, they didn't get power of attorney in case of accident or death, no benefits would come if you died or your "partner" died... it wasn't recognised in any form as a legal union between two consenting adults who love one another enough to want their 'spouse' to make those kinds of decisions and have that kind of power in circumstances where any other husband/wife would be able to do that.

A civil union, something "religion" imposed upon the legal system, was nothing like what same sex couples wanted/needed. That wasn't good enough, and I don't blame them in the least. Even then in most cases "Civil unions" in hetreosexual couples afforded more legal rights than anything Same-sex couples had. You want religion in your "marriage" then you have a "religious wedding" in your church of choice. That shouldn't exclude same-sex couples from having a legal marriage that includes all the legal benefits that any other couple can get at any other time.

User avatar
 
Posts: 939
Location: #1 Australian Fan

I'm not sure I understood everything you wrote and I fear I don't know your system/vocabulary enough :/
When I wrote "union" this could have been any other word (I did not even knew there was a "civil union").
I guess "civil union" is somewhat the equivalent of the "PACS" (or something like that) in France. Like, you declare you're together but it's not as together as marriage.

However this was purely about the vocabulary question, like: don't call "civil marriage" as "marriage "(hetero or homo) so religious people have nothing to say about it, and give gays all the rights too.
Worded differently, since there is "religious marriage", which was "marriage" historically speaking (I think) and "civil marriage", which came after, using another word for "civil marriage" might have prevented the debate, because the word "marriage" is still pretty tied to religion. So religious people can't spit on something (what I called "union" previously) that is not related to religion. Or at least, less.

I'm not sure I explain myself correctly :/

I must assume that all this goes completely over my head.
I say, let people do whatever the hell they want to, even if you disagree and as long as they don't cause any problem to other people.
Pretty close to anarchy I guess. Or somewhere between anarchy and democracy

User avatar
 
Posts: 1831
Location: Bordeaux, France

Basically "Civil Union" is like "PACS", yes. A "civil union" whereby you just inform the government (ie, fill in all the red tape paperwork) that you're in a serious relationship and you would like your partner to have legal rights as if you were married. However, the specific conditions of Defacto AND Civil Union relationships is a mess on a federal level.

In a "regular" marriage if a partner is involved in an accident and is put in a coma, the other spouse has legal power of attorney and can make decisions.... whether your life support gets turned off, what your funeral arrangements will be, can deal with your finances after you've gone, inherits your wealth (or debt).... none of these things can happen with the way same-sex couples are currently recognised. If one partner is in a coma, the same-sex partner can't make decisions. They're not legally recognised as "next of kin" - same-sex couples are just seen as two single people who live in the same house. There's no formal recognition of the deeper bond that doesn't care about what gender you are.

Marriage is a word that does that, whether it's a civil union at the courthouse, or a full white wedding ceremony in the middle of the church. It's a formal recognition of that bond, and same-sex couples have been denied that -purely- for religious reasons. The government has decided that "marriage" is the word for this kind of union, and that it's denied to same-sex couples based on the fact that religion only recognises man-woman marriages. There is no "separation of church and state" on the matter, and neither side is willing to compromise. I don't think same-sex couples would care what their union is actually called, provided that legally they get those rights they've been denied.

I just don't think there's a word in the common English language that describes the bond AND the legalities they're after besides Marriage. That's the word that people have come to use over the years, so we're kind of stuck with it.

User avatar
 
Posts: 939
Location: #1 Australian Fan

Finding a newspeak word for it was probably useless or too complicated for political people I guess...

User avatar
 
Posts: 1831
Location: Bordeaux, France

@MeaKitty Well I don't think they were denied that purely for religious reasons, rather because of bullshit reasons often backed up by religion. I believe people aren't homophobic because they are religious but rather because they are insecure, close-minded idiots and when they find something to back up their cause they'll use it.

In the end wether if they are "true" or "false", religions will always remain tools. Like with all tools they can be used to do good and bad things, how they are used depends on the person using them.

User avatar
 
Posts: 340

Actually either way you state it, not one single person has come up with a good excuse for why same-sex marriage should be denied other than religious reasons. Every argument falls back on "marriage is religious and it's between a man and a woman only", etc. And as much as I want to rant about that too, I think this thread has had enough of my opinion on the matter. XD

But yeah, you have a point. It is a tool, and there are good and bad aspects to it like everything. But it annoys me when it's used for close-minded, bigoted reasons.

User avatar
 
Posts: 939
Location: #1 Australian Fan

I think we need a rainbow Bingo avatar to CELEBRATE.

Image

Whenever @bscotchsam makes it, I'll get it into BscotchID.

As for all the arguments about WHY people are being assholes about gay marriage, the beauty of the ruling is that we can just ignore them now because their POWER HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY. In the U.S., anyway.

User avatar
 
Posts: 1722
Location: Dallas, TX USA

OH HEY if you want to celebrate in style, Sam whipped up the avatar. It's unlocked by default (there should be no barriers to celebration!) though you may need to clear your cache to have your game download it AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

Image

User avatar
 
Posts: 1722
Location: Dallas, TX USA

Woohoo!!!! Done and done!

User avatar
 
Posts: 939
Location: #1 Australian Fan

Damn it I'm too late. And I think it's sad to have the same avatar...
Well I'll celebrate in my head then!

User avatar
 
Posts: 1831
Location: Bordeaux, France

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests