Comments on That Was Fast

good for lambda. fucking hrc would never do anything that could be thought of at progressive.

All the bad weather recently is god punishing us for letting New Jersey be more progressive than us.

Meanwhile in Canada, gays can marry and then under NAFTA reside in the US.

I personally don't care what the legislation is called, Civil Unions or the M word. My partner and I have been together for over 8 years, and I just want the rights and benefits.

I noticed that our super-Democratic legislature isn't planning on taking up the issue any time soon. Does anyone know if they'll even consider it?

I still don't get the difference between marriage and civil unions. Is it just because gay couples want to sue religious organizations to force them to marry two people of the same sex, sort of a "fuck you" to the groups that have been the biggest opponents to gay marriage?

From what I understand, the rights obtained in civil unions are the same as with those in marriage (aside from the federal level, which a state legislature couldn't change anyway). Nothing about "civil unions" requires a man to refer to his spouse as a "fellow unionee", "partner", "civil worker", etc., instead of "husband". Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see it as "second class" at all (aside, of course, from lack of federal rights, but that's a different ballgame).

Re #3: Is that everywhere in Canada? I thought I heard it varied from province to province whether gay marriage is recognized.

Re #5: The question is, will they be treated the same way in contract law and such. For example, a lot of insurance contacts define "spouse" using the term "marriage," so people with civil unions might be out of luck.

Orv,

Yes, marriage equality is legal throughout Canada. Most provinces legalized it in 2003, and the federal government followed in 2005. Wikipedia has tons of great info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage

Him,

This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing religious organizations to do anything. No one wants that. This is about everyone being equal in the eyes of the state, as our federal and state constitutions hypocritically and duplicitously promise.
The state calls it marriage and words do matter. Few people know what "civil union" means, and the benefits aren't portable from state to state like marriage. So, why not simply call it what it is instead of the pathetic, immature idiocy of creating another separate and unequal institution?
And why do people in other countries like Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and South freakin’ Africa have real equality that we can’t have here in the US?

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/

while i think the difference sucks, one of the legislators said something to the degree of "the distance between nothing and civil unions is far greater than the distance between civil unions and gay marriage." that's probably true, so i guess that is hearting.

How would the rights of full same-sex marriage be portable from state to state? Before Loving v. Virginia, a number of states refused to recognize interracial marriages performed elsewhere.

wouldn't be. see massachusetts.

This bill is essentially marriage in all but name under state law, so it is definitely a good step. The kick in the teeth is going to be when all those new couples go to file their taxes: the feds don't recognize any same-sex relationship, so its going to be a real mess for those filing jointly in NJ.

Do you file a joint 1040 and risk an audit? Or do you file seperately, which will require an accountant to figure out the complex dance between state and federal taxes? Ugh. The next incremental step needs to be a federal law recognizing these unions/marriages for citizens of those states that allow them for tax/SSA/Medicare purposes.

Keshmeshi,

True, but there hasn’t been a federal test case yet, ala Loving v. Virginia. And in fact, there were something like fourteen lawsuits that failed before Loving succeeded. In any case, there is no apparatus among the states to regulate civil unions like there is for marriage.

Also, the US states may be violating the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, NAFTA and international law by refusing to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts or other countries like Canada, but again, the courts and legislatures will have to sort it out.

Not that it really matters since we violate international law all the time now.

Massachusetts also has a law from the anti-interracial marriage days that states couples can’t marry there if their marriage would be illegal in their home state.

#12...
Massachusetts also has a law from the anti-interracial marriage days that states couples can’t marry there if their marriage would be illegal in their home state.

which romney cited when we had a flood of people into the state to get married back in 2004, to uphold his bigotted asswipery.

New Jersey is a step in the right direction. But, true justice will be when the government refuses to endorse any sort of romantic relationship. Health benefits should not be tied to a romantic relationship. A worker should be able to pass on their pension to their best friend, or mother, or cousin. Let's do away with marriage as a state sponsored thing.

I think the gay community needs a new approach.

Let's all fight for Civil Unions. We don't want that darn marriage business - NO! - that's not for us. We wouldn't take marriage if you paid us, WE WANT CIVIL UNIONS! Civil Unions are a Civil Right!

What do you think them extremist Christians would do then? Would they argue that we shouldn't get civil unions cause that's what God created for str8 people? Or, will they realize that they've spent so much time and money getting us to not get "Marriage" that they've also paved the way to get Civil Unions handed to us on a very tasteful platter?

Who CARES what it's called? It's all about the rights that the union/marriage bestows. Call it a LindaHunt, just give medical coverage and inheritance rights to whom they belong,