The debate escalated when the Supreme Courts made more decisions in February. Another state Massachusetts ruled that same-sex couples have full marriage rights. Texas banned anti-sodomy laws, reversing the ruling from seventeen ago when homosexuals (and any other couple) took part in deviant sex. San Franciscos mayor Newsom decided to start giving marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment:
Bush sees these states taking a more liberal stand, and is rushing to amend the Constitution (Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment) to say that only opposite sex couples can be married. This amendment would be hard: the Constitution needs a two-thirds majority in each house of Congess to pass an amendment, plus the states legislatures have to be three-fourths (38:50) in agreement. The Constitution has only been amended seventeen times in 215 years. Yet, let us say that it passes. After the amendment? He will allow that states could tolerate same-sex couples to join in civil unions. This is not separate but equal however.
Civil Union states:
Only Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska are states that recognize civil unions now. Massachusetts will be one in May, 2004 and (hopefully) California will be one in 2005. Every state has their interpretation of the guidelines. Yet only Vermont declares that civil unions are almost identical with marriage.
On paper, Vermont asserts that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples as far as adoption, gives tax breaks to civil union couples and allows insurance/medical benefits to these couples. California and Massachusetts will soon. Hawaii doesnt have to give workplace insurance and Alaska doesnt have to give medical benefits.
At least Vermont is on the right track.
Defense of the Marriage Act:
Well, except for names and Social Security benefits and citizenship rights. I.e., 1049 Federal laws the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will not recognize same-sex union.
Plus, if the same-sex couple moves away from these states that acknowledge these civil union contracts, then the contract is probably null and void, depending on which state in which the couple winds up. The states rely upon the sustained restriction of the Full Faith and Credit clause: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Other countries:
Canada
Same sex couples are under the title of Common-Law-Spouses and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Denmark
Same sex couples are under the title of Civil Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption (not including step-parent adoption).
Germany
Same sex couples are under the title of Registered Partnerships and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Switzerland
Same sex couples are under the title of Same-Sex Partners and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
France
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Sweden
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Norway
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Iceland
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Belgium
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Buenos Aires
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Netherlands
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex marriages and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Portugal
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Argentina
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Australia
Tasmania and Victoria: same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption (not including step-parent adoption).
Brazil
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Liechtenstein
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Namibia
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
South Africa
Same sex couples are under the title of Life Partners and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Hungary
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Taiwan
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Marriages and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
United Kingdom
Same sex couples are now under the title of Common-Law-Spouses but are not on an equal basis with opposite sex couples because however such a marriage is not recognized in law. However the law might be changed very soon to become Civil Partnerships and would be on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
So whats the big deal in America?
Yep, Bush and other social conservatives want marriage, civil or religious, to be for heterosexual couples only. Some rabid conservatives dont even want civil unions to be viable. But why?
Tradition
Bush/conservatives say: the institution of heterosexual marriage has been a happy institution that has lasted since Adam and Eve were created. They dont want to change the meaning of marriage.
Well, some things have changed. Women are not property. The words, honor and obey were struck out of every wedding vow. Black people can marry white people. Divorces are legal. In fact, over 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Which leads me to the next concern
Children
In his somber plea, Bush says: Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children
Wonderful. No-one is debating that. What is on the table is whether same sex partners can have the same luxury to love and serve one another. Wouldnt that promote the welfare of their children? The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse and American Civil Liberties Union estimate there are 2.5 to 8 million homosexual adults living in the USA today, and as of 1990, 6 to14 million children were being raised in homosexual households. Statistical evidence is proving that these children are not at all physically or psychologically harmed by having lesbian or gay parents. It seems that homosexual parents dont differ from heterosexual parents in approaches, attitudes or the time and effort they perform to parenting responsibilities.
The bottom line is Non-traditional parenting is here to stay. The children are not traumatized by the different sexual orientation their parents have. The children are much more apt to be traumatized the lack of emotional and financial security that sometimes comes from a single parent-family, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
I am going to leave the religious aspect of marriage alone. We, in America, try to put our religious beliefs and our social beliefs in separate categories. I am only talking about civil marriage. Unfortunately, some separate the two much better than others
And what I think?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If civil marriage and civil union are absolutely identical in rights and benefits, then let the opposite sex couples have the name. Same-sex couples are hooked on the idea of separate but equal being unequal simply because of the classification. Just as homosexual and heterosexual have those designations, let the nuptials be the same. Fight over the rights, not the names.
Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment:
Bush sees these states taking a more liberal stand, and is rushing to amend the Constitution (Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment) to say that only opposite sex couples can be married. This amendment would be hard: the Constitution needs a two-thirds majority in each house of Congess to pass an amendment, plus the states legislatures have to be three-fourths (38:50) in agreement. The Constitution has only been amended seventeen times in 215 years. Yet, let us say that it passes. After the amendment? He will allow that states could tolerate same-sex couples to join in civil unions. This is not separate but equal however.
Civil Union states:
Only Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska are states that recognize civil unions now. Massachusetts will be one in May, 2004 and (hopefully) California will be one in 2005. Every state has their interpretation of the guidelines. Yet only Vermont declares that civil unions are almost identical with marriage.
On paper, Vermont asserts that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples as far as adoption, gives tax breaks to civil union couples and allows insurance/medical benefits to these couples. California and Massachusetts will soon. Hawaii doesnt have to give workplace insurance and Alaska doesnt have to give medical benefits.
At least Vermont is on the right track.
Defense of the Marriage Act:
Well, except for names and Social Security benefits and citizenship rights. I.e., 1049 Federal laws the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will not recognize same-sex union.
Plus, if the same-sex couple moves away from these states that acknowledge these civil union contracts, then the contract is probably null and void, depending on which state in which the couple winds up. The states rely upon the sustained restriction of the Full Faith and Credit clause: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Other countries:
Canada
Same sex couples are under the title of Common-Law-Spouses and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Denmark
Same sex couples are under the title of Civil Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption (not including step-parent adoption).
Germany
Same sex couples are under the title of Registered Partnerships and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Switzerland
Same sex couples are under the title of Same-Sex Partners and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
France
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Sweden
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Norway
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Iceland
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Belgium
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Buenos Aires
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Netherlands
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex marriages and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Portugal
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Argentina
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Australia
Tasmania and Victoria: same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption (not including step-parent adoption).
Brazil
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Liechtenstein
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Namibia
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
South Africa
Same sex couples are under the title of Life Partners and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
Hungary
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Unions and are almost on equal basis with opposite sex couples except for adoption.
Taiwan
Same sex couples are under the title of Same Sex Marriages and are on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
United Kingdom
Same sex couples are now under the title of Common-Law-Spouses but are not on an equal basis with opposite sex couples because however such a marriage is not recognized in law. However the law might be changed very soon to become Civil Partnerships and would be on equal basis with opposite sex couples.
So whats the big deal in America?
Yep, Bush and other social conservatives want marriage, civil or religious, to be for heterosexual couples only. Some rabid conservatives dont even want civil unions to be viable. But why?
Tradition
Bush/conservatives say: the institution of heterosexual marriage has been a happy institution that has lasted since Adam and Eve were created. They dont want to change the meaning of marriage.
Well, some things have changed. Women are not property. The words, honor and obey were struck out of every wedding vow. Black people can marry white people. Divorces are legal. In fact, over 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Which leads me to the next concern
Children
In his somber plea, Bush says: Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children
Wonderful. No-one is debating that. What is on the table is whether same sex partners can have the same luxury to love and serve one another. Wouldnt that promote the welfare of their children? The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse and American Civil Liberties Union estimate there are 2.5 to 8 million homosexual adults living in the USA today, and as of 1990, 6 to14 million children were being raised in homosexual households. Statistical evidence is proving that these children are not at all physically or psychologically harmed by having lesbian or gay parents. It seems that homosexual parents dont differ from heterosexual parents in approaches, attitudes or the time and effort they perform to parenting responsibilities.
The bottom line is Non-traditional parenting is here to stay. The children are not traumatized by the different sexual orientation their parents have. The children are much more apt to be traumatized the lack of emotional and financial security that sometimes comes from a single parent-family, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
I am going to leave the religious aspect of marriage alone. We, in America, try to put our religious beliefs and our social beliefs in separate categories. I am only talking about civil marriage. Unfortunately, some separate the two much better than others
And what I think?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If civil marriage and civil union are absolutely identical in rights and benefits, then let the opposite sex couples have the name. Same-sex couples are hooked on the idea of separate but equal being unequal simply because of the classification. Just as homosexual and heterosexual have those designations, let the nuptials be the same. Fight over the rights, not the names.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |