VICTORY in sight for Gay Civil Unions

[Rob Tucker]

Perhaps someone can answer your question. I can't. Good luck.

[Obie]

[
Interesting that they did not mention cousins in their list of ineligible people that can receive these basic rights.
[/quote]

Cousins are legally allowed to marry in Hawaii already.

[kalama boy]

Thanks Obie, I didn't know that.

[konadave]

It is an interesting thought that heterosexual seniors are NOT getting re-married due to Social Security. But they can go thru the Civil Union process and not lose their survivor benefits. I think this is not right. I believe this is defrauding the government to an extent. The idea behind losing your survivor benefits when you re-marry is so you don't benefit from losing a spouse and then gaining income when you marry another. The same loss of survivor benefits should apply to civil unions equally as it does to marriage. JMHO


Ka'u Web
Ka'u Blog
Ka'u Homes
Pohue Bay
Kona Forum
Dream Kona
Da Kine Hosting
Da Kine Web Design

[pslamont]

House members approved their version of SB 232 in a 31-19 vote Friday.

The bill allows couples — either of the same sex or heterosexual — to enter into a civil union, a legal status with all the rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of traditional marriage.

The latest version clarifies that because civil unions will not be recognized under federal law, certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that apply to husbands and wives in Hawaii would apply with the same force and effect to partners in civil unions.

I want to be the kind of woman that, when my feet
hit the floor each morning, the devil says

"Oh Crap, She's up!"

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by konadave

It is an interesting thought that heterosexual seniors are NOT getting re-married due to Social Security. But they can go thru the Civil Union process and not lose their survivor benefits. I think this is not right. I believe this is defrauding the government to an extent. The idea behind losing your survivor benefits when you re-marry is so you don't benefit from losing a spouse and then gaining income when you marry another. The same loss of survivor benefits should apply to civil unions equally as it does to marriage. JMHO

---

[:p][:o)][:p][:o)]
Dave, not laughing at you, but the thought that this was even falsely mentioned by someone.

First, the federal government has always and continues to recognize civil unions in the same exact way they recognize a marriage. For federal purposes, they are the same. So there will be absolutely no change in how Social Security or any other federal benefit is administered. Equally all other states and countries recognize civil unions. Nothing in that regard will change.

The DMA limits federal recognition and gives each state the option of recognizing the marriage, civil unions, joining, or whatever else it's called to only a man and woman. So opposite sex couples joined in marriage or civil unions remains as is, but same sex couples still do not have equal rights under federal law and can be denied equal protection by individual states with the blessing of the federal government.

But, opposite sex couples won’t gain any new benefits. The idea that it will provide something beyond what a "married" couple enjoys is outright false!

The questions and concerns you raise are very important because it gives people the opportunity to hear and question what they are hearing. In the process, it enables the propaganda wrapping paper to be removed and the contents finally exposed. That wrapper with warning labels of fear, horror, death and mayhem were only put on to hide the contents. They want you to be afraid, upset, pissed and mad, but inside the box is just a orange.

[konadave]

Bob,

I picked this up from Rob who quoted it out of a link he provided.

So I did some reading on it and found the statement to be true according to what I was reading. So I am not sure I understand what you wrote? I have been reading around on this matter and I cannot find any website (including websites dedicated to homosexuals) that states that "...the federal government has always and continues to recognize civil unions in the same exact way they recognize a marriage." As a matter of fact most state just the opposite. Including quoting that the GAO states that there are more than 1,100 rights and protection that are given to married couples that couples in civil unions don't enjoy. Please point me to a legitimate website that states just what you said. I would be interested in reading it.



Ka'u Web
Ka'u Blog
Ka'u Homes
Pohue Bay
Kona Forum
Dream Kona
Da Kine Hosting
Da Kine Web Design

[Bob Orts]

Dave, it's a bit complex an explanation, but here goes. When reading comments on "Civil Unions" you have to know what exactly are they talking about? Are they talking about a specific definition that is used in a specific instance, or something else?

It was in 2000 that Vermont first promulgated a "Civil Union" that was not a marriage, and that is what some are referring to when they say "Civil Union". It's not civil unions, it's Vermont’s "Civil Union" specific to how Vermont first defined it.

Prior to that, a civil union was just the way the matrimony was performed. You see this in federal laws when benefits were being denied to legally married couples because the state or territory imposed their own recognition of marriages as "In the Eyes of God", meaning they recognized only church marriages and not those done administratively by a judge, justice of the peace, or a court clerk. So governments added in their laws (written way before the year 2000) that the benefits and privileges of spouses included Holy and Civil. Look at all the laws modified in the 60-70's that had to add the various recognized cultural, spiritual, and alternative weddings. These are all legal and recognized by governments, just like civil and holy prior to change of meanings post 2000.

So when you hear people say "civil union" you need to know if they are speaking of the common law application as in a union performed under state law with no affinity connection or civil union as in the specific definition in use by Vermont and now a few other states?

Now to complicate this more, ALL marriages are civil. They are performed under the state civil laws. You can add the requirements of some other umbrella, but the state civil authority of marriage is superior to the umbrella group. You can get married in a civil ceremony and although your church may not recognize the marriage for their purposes, it's still a legal union. Likewise if you got married in a church under church law (which has to also conform to state law), you are divorced legally under civil law. It doesn’t matter if the church recognizes that divorce under their laws, it's a legal divorced under the law and to hell with what the church thinks.

The last point to make is that people use the word marriage as if that is the legal definition. The legal definition is the consensual contractual joining under the laws of a state. So you will see and hear in various laws depending on when written, (and why), the words: marriage, matrimony, union in matrimony, union, wedlock, civil union, wedded, marriage union, and similar words to describe the state sponsored consensual joining of two as one.

Civil Union, as we discuss the gay marriage issue, is not even ten years old and only found in a handful of state's laws. To take 2,000 years of applying the word civil & union together meaning marriage and throw that away because of a couple of state's recent use of that phrase to describe a very specific local definition is like having a mass murderer call himself Jesus Christ and for that point forward, Jesus Christ means only mass murderers.

ETA: Dave, so that we can all agree and not get side tracked on the issue of Hawaii, I'll assume that whenever the word civil union is mentioned, it references the Domestic Partnership type meaning and when Marriage is used, it references the tradional common definiton of matrimony. Because not all states and not all fedreal laws use the same terminaiology to mean the same thing, (and some uses one to mean the other) if we keep it to the purpose of these two things, we can get on with the discussion. Fair?

[konadave]

Bob,

I was confused by your using the term "Civil Union" interchangably with Civil Marriage, Civil Ceremony, etc. While I had heard the term Civil Union before I never heard it used as another definition for Civil Marriage, etc. So I am sure you can understand my confusion.

While doing some research on the subject I was trying to find both sides of the argument and reading thru numerous sites dedicated to the support of the gay civil unions. When you look thru the large number of websites that I did I found that they are very specific not to confuse the use of civil union for homosexuals with civil marriage for heterosexuals. When they mean civil union for gays they use civil union. When they mean civil marriage for heterosexuals they use civil marriage. So it only reinforced my misunderstanding.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Ka'u Web
Ka'u Blog
Ka'u Homes
Pohue Bay
Kona Forum
Dream Kona
Da Kine Hosting
Da Kine Web Design

[Orchidlandguy]

I know throughout this thread several posters have emphasized that this bill applies to others besides gays. That is true, and very much not the focus of the bill. See the last few headlines in the Hilo Herald Trib and the other HI papers. This was and is about rights for a population denied marriage in this state and country, gays and lesbians.
Yes, others can take advantage of this, but as is evident in the headline articles, this is a bill for gays and lesbians to be one small step closer to getting equal rights.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL MINORITIES.