Where the Dem presidential candidates are on civil unions

I don't get it

If a candidate is for civil unions and the idea that such unions should convey all the rights that a "marriage" does, how is that different than simply recognizing everyone's right to get married (or not, for that matter)?

At any rate, the government should stay the hell out of a religious ceremony like marriage.  In fact, such ceremonies, no matter what religion sanctions them, should have no legal standing whatsoever.  Everyone who wants to enter into a domestic partnership should have to file some paperwork with the county stating their intentions and agreement, etc. and getting a dissolution could fall under current divorce laws.  Churches and other religious groups could decide for themselves what to do with marriages that don't continue.

---

by: Stephen @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:47:13 AM CST

Ugh

I wish someone would ask these people, and in particular Ms. Clinton, how many gays should have their fucking bodies moved from the grave so that she can "defend" marriage and drone on and on and on about "civil unions" and "equal rights" when every human being with a brain in this country already knows that civil unions ARE civil marriages?

Clinton, and in some aspects, HRC, buy into the Right wingnut spin that providing easy-to-secure methods of handling universal (yes, and individual) life experiences is something that has to be GRANTED, rather than is an inherent right of every citizen. When religious crazies can contend that fundamental rules established by the government controlling each person's right to make a fucking medical decision are only "incidents" of "marriage", they continue to fail to get to the fundamental question about how and why these statutes were passed OR address the most important question at hand for every American: How much power should the GOVERNMENT have over determining how free citizens are allowed to create and define their lives and relationships?

Not a SINGLE candidate is willing to stand up and reaffirm the long-established notion that governmental interest in regulating the relationships of citizens should be limited to ensuring the protection of public health or providing a smooth transition of property and benefits to surviving "family" members. This ain't rocket science. The American family no longer lives for centuries on the "family" farm. Economics, social upheaveal, religious meddling, job creation - all have dissipated the "traditional" family structure. It is more the NORM in society for non-blood relatives and neighbors and friends to know more about the daily lives of individuals in this nation than family members living 2000 miles away. . .and 19th century statutes expressly developed to minimize problems which existed THEN are NOT "incidents of marriage."

We've seen the next steps that so-called "religious" extremists want in this country - stricter regulation of all relationships (including heterosexual), government rights to interfere with the exclusive right of MARRIED people to make decisions (think Terri Schiavo), government control over the womb and eventually ejaculation permits. . .and not a damned peep or single understanding of this reality from a single Dem candidate.

This issue is more than just about the idea that "gay couples deserve equal rights" - it's about how every American citizen deserves all of the same rights. This is why I STILL believe someone with some moxie should be asking these damned candidates a laundry list of questions concerning which rights straight white men "deserve" in this country. I am so sick and tired of having my citizenship questioned and defined by other people who completely ignore any notion that the Constitution is MY protection too.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a supposedly "free" country when an issue is framed so fraudulently and the candidates most friendly to our position have to kiss the butts of the morons whose agenda is to REMOVE our rights as citizens. Are we supposed to be thrilled that Shillary and Co. only wish to create separate water fountains for gays but pledge to make sure our water is as cool and refreshing as the water for straight Americans? Or that she's willing to declare that the back seats of city buses will be just as comfortable for gays as the ones in front are for straights even if the straight white man driving the vehicle ignores us when we pull the cord and want to get off at our stops?

And then we get this crap about how to correctly pursue something that should be a no-brainer, a natural given in this country, and HRC seems to climb right onto the "civil unions" platfrom as if they are doing us a big fucking favor. "Don't mention that civil unions already exist as civil marriages." "Don't mention that it is blatant religious discrimination to endorse religious right definitions of "marriage" as LAW for all Americans while ignoring and dismissing the churches who DO marry us" "Don't talk about the fact that thousands of American gay couples are LEGALLY wed in another country but are treated as legally SINGLE people in their own damned "free" homeland."

Any one of these candidates should be grilled when they appear before any of our organizations or any area where our community lives. Why the hell does Hillary Clinton, of all people, deserve special rights to make medical decisions for Bill Clinton when her husband already broke their vows by getting a blow job in the Oval Office? How many of these candidates are gonna tell us that yes, they were all virginal until "marriage," which is why they hold it so fucking "sacred" and that gays have to respect that about the holier-than-God-him/herself straight people cuz THEY know all about love and we've embraced some cheap imitation that can't possibly be as noble as theirs?

And then we are supposed to stand there and believe they honestly, sincerely believe in "equal rights" for us?

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:01:35 AM CST

Spot-on as always

Kevin, do you ever submit editorials to the newspapers?  The words you tap out on your keyboard are powerful, articulate, and persuasive.  YOU are what we need in this fight. 

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:37:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kevinbgoode, Please Do Some Research

Civil unions are not civil marriages.  Please study up on the topic.  There's a vast amount of material on the subject available at the library, book stores, and of course, on the internet.  People are not fighting for and demanding something they already have.  There is only one "marriage" and it is unique.  And there is a reason people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards slink away from supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and support the idea of civil unions.  It is because the two institutions are vastly incongruent, differening in literally thousands of legal ways, and this is not a question of religion, social acceptance or rejection, public relations or feel-good/feel-bad politics; IT IS A MATTER OF LAW.  Civil unions and real marriage, legally, aren't even in the same galaxy.  There is only one Democratic presidential candidate with the courage and integrity to stand up for marriage equality; his name is Kucinich; but since he is tiny, has funny hair and an odd name, this great American doesn't have a chance in hell.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 22:52:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you....but I've done quite a bit of research in this area

and the concept of "civil union" has only been legally defined "differently" because of non-recognition by the federal government or other states. The same justice of the peace performs "civil unions" as "civil marriages". . .perhaps you could quote the exact ceremonies so we can see the "difference" between the two concepts beyond the simple use of a word.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:50:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Like the Song Says, The Very Beginning is Best Place to Start

Kevin, the fact that you believe that the ceremonies are the important thing about marriage or civil union shows
that you haven't done the homework yet.  It is not the ceremony, who performs it, what was worn, who catered the affair, and... here's the big one... the religious
slant of the ceremony.  A lot of people forget that we have no national religion in the United States.  A little thing like the Establishment Clause prevents that.  (Whew!)
This is where many people are still confused because the issue is still relatively new.  A mere decade ago, people wouldn't even think of discussing the notion of two people of the same sex marrying.  It would be like the idea of calling Jupiter collect.  When people stand up for the right to marry, the cermony is the LAST stop.  The FIRST stop is the clerk's office to apply for a marriage license.  In many small municipalities, it is the same clerk who has the forms for licensing forms for marriage, dog ownership, fishing and refuse disposal.  Except in Massachusetts, two people of the same sex will not be given the application form to marry. And that, and ONLY THAT, is the issue.  It is the application, and only the application.

I can't and won't hog the whole board and spend the whole week listing the over one thousand ways, giant and small, how marriage is unique and clearly understood and interpreted by all American institutions, whereas domestic partnerships, civil unions, reciprocal beneficiaries and other registries are vague, incomplete, vary regionally, and are the middle-of-the bus as far as equality.  I know your heart's in the right place, but nothing beats the facts to back things up.  Without really knowing how marriage differs from all the other invented poop to make us shut up about marriage, gays and lesbians may become complacent about it.  Here's a good place to start- Google this: difference between marriage civil unions.  The more one finds out about it, the more slighted, unequal and marginalized a gay man or lesbian one is likely to feel. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:19:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think we all understand how vague civil "unions" are. . .

even when they are created by orders from a court which demand that gays be afforded all of the same rights, protections, and responsibilities as marriage under the law. That is what the marriage license conveys access.

In the entire media circus debate about this issue, civil marriage is never discussed - meaning, no discussion about the application or the contract established between the parties and the state. The only time it is ever brought up is when there are actually civil unions or marriages legalized, then the media treats it as an after story.

The point here is that civil unions are not the equivilent of marriage, and we all understand that - but a civil union already exists as a non-religious ceremony AND as the application for marriage. Marriage IS a civil union in that it becomes a contract between the parties and the state and the disingenuous manner in which it has been presented as equal is the prevailing point I'm trying to make here. "Civil unions" already exist and have existed since the government took marriage away from corrupt religious organizations centuries ago for practical reasons of counting population, the number of people who die, and the distribution of property. The point I was attempting to make here is that the concept of "civil union" is ridiculous as a claim for "equality" unless the civil unions which exist today (meaning the marriage contract) is applied equally to all.

I only brought up the ceremony to point out that if this is going to be explored so distinctly, we should start with the performance of a ceremony by the justice of the peace and search for the symbolic language differences in the ceremony itself - and then look for the attempts to differentiate between definitions in the law and apply those to the differentiation in the application process. No one is trying to claim that civil union laws equate marriage here - only that civil unions ARE marriages in the contractual eyes of the state, which cannot include a "religious" test to the application/ceremony process.

The attachment of "religion" to marriage is an invention of the Right. All marriages are civil "union" contracts.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:38:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage" is a Foul-Tasting Substitute

Kevin, you had written this: "Every human being with a brain in this country already knows that civil unions ARE civil marriages" and now you say "The point here is that civil unions are not the equivilent (sic) of marriage, and we all understand that," so it's either one or the other.
If you believe your second statement, then we're on the same page.

Vagueness is not the only problem with domestic partnerships, civil unions, and other registries.  People often think it is only a matter of three things: hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and child custody, plus some sort of fuzzy pride thing: "See, the government thinks my partner and I are legit."  It is a lot, lot more.  I recommend to anybody who is not exactly sure what real marriage entails to google: difference civil union marriage.
It's a real eye-opener, and if you didn't know that civil unions are an insulting, degrading and patently unconsitutional (a little thing called the Equal Protection Clause), then after reading, you will know. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 18:46:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I also wrote " All marriages are civil "union" contracts."

There are no legally recognized religious marriages. All "marriages" are a civil contract (union). The attempt to differentiate by creating "civil unions" as a separate entity is a ruse. We already have civil unions - they are called "marriage."

We are all aware of the differences in implementation. You missed the original point.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 18:56:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why Semantics Matter

Kev, ask 10 random people what they think a civil union is, and it is likely not one will think you are talking about real marriage.  Why confuse the issue?  Yes, real marriage is a civil contract, and yes, it is the union between two people.  But the term civil union is not interchangeable with the term marriage, not only in terms of the benefits and responsibilities, but also what people take these terms to mean. 

A civil union essentially is a bone tossed to what society feels are pervs who are not entitled to marriage.  That is why every Democratic candidate for president, except for Dennis Kucinich, is in favor of civil unions, and against marriage equality.  And so that is why I am harping on this point.  If you confuse the two terms, you confuse the issue.  And if one doesn't understand the issue, then one is more likely to not care about it.  Obviously, I do care.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 20:36:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but this is rather ridiculous

We know what the newly-created "civil unions" are already. We also don't buy the ruse. You missed the point.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 21:42:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I notice that...

you've described Obama's, Dodd's, and Edwards' positions on same-sex marriage simply as "Marriage, no. Civil unions, yes."  In contrast, you've given Clinton's position a rather sour dismissal followed by a full rant.

I can't help but also notice that Clinton's position is identical to Obama's, Dodd's, and Edwards'.

---

by: teh registered user haha lol @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 10:20:58 AM CST

Clinton supportd DOMA

According to this, Clinton says she supported DOMA way back in the 90s because it helped derail the Fed anti-equality Marriage Amendment in 2004.  Pretzel reasoning in time there regarding her, but she may be right that the DOMA gave some legislators cover not to vote for the amendment.  The question which remains, now that Dems are in control of congress so we know that the anti-equality amendment won't make it a vote again, why defend DOMA any longer?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:13:12 AM CST

Let me tell you...

...exactly how much patience I have with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or any other politician telling me that anti-gay legislation is for my own good.

*deep breath*

...  Oh, never mind.  You already know.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:27:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True That

It is true that DOMA was the alternative to a constitutional amendment, which definitely would have cleared the states in the 90s. 

I am not sure I see much benefit to Congress expending the effort to repeal DOMA now when the President would veto it.  Repealing DOMA will be one of those monumental votes that will require folks to stand up (and face consequences) to do the right thing.  People aren't going to do that on a symbolic vote.  And we shouldn't want them to do so, and face the consequences, unless the deal is going to get done.

---

by: tony2 @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:28:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but these are presidential candidates

Tony2, you have a good point for the moment.  But we're talking about the *next* president - the person who *could* sign the DOMA repeal.  That's an important difference, and it is important to keep the pressure on them.  Otherwise, it is clear that no progress will happen.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:34:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chris Dodd

Chris Dodd voted for federal DOMA as a Senator in 1996.  He's the only other Dem candidate with a recorded vote on it, other than the ones already given--I think.

CT already has a civil unions law, which informs his current position.  I'm happy to see him talking about repealing DOMA now; I'd like to see him talking about marriage equality.  Other people in CT certainly are, so his not supporting it puts him on the regressive side of his own constituency.


"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:24:04 AM CST

Civil marriage/civil union/whatever

Despite the folks who say marriage is a religious matter (and, for many it is), it is also a contractual one, and has always been regulated by the state.  Personally, I'm more comfortable with the Napoleonic Code, where marriage as a contract is separate from whatever relgious overtones there are (and the very reason it's easier to pass marriage, and/or civil union laws in countries like Mexico or France or Sweden than in the United States.... where ministers of religion are ALSO doing the state's job.  In most of the civilized world, the legal part of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and is done by some municipal officer of some sort). 

That said, I'm not sure what the hang-up is over the name, but it exists.  Political reality may mean civil unions are the option that's going to exist (and, they aren't necessarily "gay"... an elderly person and non related caregiver may also want a legal way to protect assets, or two sisters sharing a house may want equal custody of children.  It's no one's business anyway). 

I'm not endorsing anyone at this time, but I think we'll need to look again as people are better educated on the issues.  Richardson, for example, may not "be there" on paper, but as Gov. of New Mexico, he's been supportive of efforts to guarantee equality (and not unsupportive of gay marriage). 

I'm guess I'm getting old... I don't expect any politician to give me the whole enchillada anymore.  Just not to stand in the way of reasonable progressive decisions.  Or hem and haw about them. 

---

by: richmx2 @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:01:40 PM CST

Hillary's Gift

DOMA, like everything Bill Clinton allegedly "gave" the LBGT community, was worked on and endorsed by "two
presidents for the price of one" Hillary.  Hillary was
for DOMA then, and still says she is for it.
Bill signed it into law in a private late-night affair with no press allowed.  The next day he issued a statement saying that DOMA in no way should be interpreted as an excuse for violence against gay people.  In the upcoming
1996 elections, the DNC BRAGGED about DOMA, saying it was
proof of Democrats' traditional bahhhhhhh-bull values.
And in the crazy self-serving labyrinth that is Hillary's mind, DOMA was a gift to us because it potentially offset something worse.  Where do you go to return this gift? 

More and more I'm convinced that the difference between the Republicans and the Clintons is that the Republicans are for world empire, big oil and endless war.  Whereas the Clintons are for absolutely nothing.  How did we, as a nation, wind up with such a short menu of choices?

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 17:59:50 PM CST

triangulation

This sounds like more triangulation on Hillary's part. She is both for and against gays. She can also put on a Southern accent when it suits her.
http://www.vidmeter....

She Hillary gets the nomination the Republicans will kill her on her flip flops.

---

by: Michael Hussey @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 21:23:19 PM CST

unless...

Hillary gets the nomination the Republicans will kill her on her flip flops.
Unless Willard Romney is their candidate.  Then it'll be Battle of the FlipFlopitons /cue scarry music/.  That might be kinda fun to watch...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 21:25:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]