Which of the following would be acceptable?

[Maize]

I posted this on my forum which tends to be a little bit more liberal than the general public (95% of respondants said same sex couples should have full and equal legal rights the same as heterosexual couples do, although what it should be called was in some disagreement). So I thought I'd bring my poll here and ask a wider audience.

Please just answer the poll. I really don't want to hear about it if you think gays are icky or about how much your god hate homosexuals. Please, no hating or flaming here.

This poll is about legal rights and definitions, pure and simple.

You may choose more than one option. My goal is to find the options most acceptable to most people.

More indepth poll option explanations:

• Civil marriage rights for every couple, gay or straight; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)
  

• Everyone (straight and gay) has a civil union; marriage made no longer a legal term, just a religious one; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)

• Same sex couples can have civil unions that are equal in every respect to civil marriage, but civil marriage still only for heterosexuals; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)

• Same sex couples can have civil unions as they exist now (unequal to civil marriage rights); civil marriage only for heterosexuals; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)

• No legal recognition whatsoever for same sex couples; they should have no legal rights as a couple in regards to property, insurance, medical decisions, wills, power of attorney, children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc.; civil marriage only for heterosexuals; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)

• Other legal solution/option, please post

Poll to come

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Everyone (straight and gay) has a civil union; marriage made no longer a legal term, just a religious one; churches still choose whom they give a religious ceremony to and who they don't (just as they do now)

 

[Spinrad]

#2

 

[Maize]

Also, it is my goal to identify the % of people who have issues with the definitions of marriage but no issues with extending equal legal rights to all citizens and the % who believe GLBT citizens are not worthy of equal legal rights.

 

[Brennin]

I chose:

No legal recognition whatsoever for same sex couples

 

[Maize]

I chose:

No legal recognition whatsoever for same sex couples

Can you tell me what legal reasons you have against same sex couples having access to legal rights that cover property, insurance, medical decisions, wills, power of attorney, children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. ? Thanks.

 

[jayem]

I don't see a clear distinction between options 1 and 2. Is it just different terminology? Is there any difference in "civil marriage" for everyone, and "civil union" for everyone? I'd pick either of these.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Also, it is my goal to identify the % of people who have issues with the definitions of marriage but no issues with extending equal legal rights to all citizens and the % who believe GLBT citizens are not worthy of equal legal rights.

LOL Ya just gotta love where the premise is inserted into the text as a given and an exhortation that "OK, no hating, baiting, flaming, debating, etc." follows the subtle inserts.

A "couple" comprising of both women or both men are not a representation of one man and one woman, no paradox of both balance and diversity, no equal representation from each gender, no inherent procreative nature, no inherent compare/contrast in role modeling and interaction between the genders, etc., so a demand that the first be given the same incentives as the latter is unwarranted and the clarification of what is deserving continues.

 

[Brennin]

LOL Ya just gotta love these little antics where the premise is inserted into the text as a given and an explanation of "OK, no hating, baiting, flaming, debating, etc. follows.

A "couple" comprising of both women or both men are not a representation of one man and one woman, no paradox of both balance and diversity, no equal representation from each gender, no inherent procreative nature, no inherent compare/contrast in role modeling and interaction between the genders, etc., so a demand that the first be given the same incentives as the latter is unwarranted and the clarification of what is deserving continues.

 

[Maize]

LOL Ya just gotta love these little antics where the premise is inserted into the text as a given and an explanation of "OK, no hating, baiting, flaming, debating, etc. follows.

It's just a poll for my own curiousity to see where the objections to same sex couples having legal rights really lies. Is it from differences in terminology or that people feel GLBT really aren't worhy of legal rights? I want to know.

Answer it or don't, it matters not to me.

And I didn't say anything about not debating, but I'd like to keep this to legal reasonings.

 

[Maize]

I don't see a clear distinction between options 1 and 2. Is it just different terminology? Is there any difference in "civil marriage" for everyone, and "civil union" for everyone? I'd pick either of these.

It's just different terminology because I've had many people tell me they are not against equal rights, but have issues with calling it marriage. I'm trying to give them an appropriate option to choose.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Can you tell me what legal reasons you have against same sex couples having access to legal rights that cover property, insurance, medical decisions, wills, power of attorney, children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. ? Thanks.

Wrong premise first of all:
Gays are not denied the ability to draw up and enact Wills, Medical Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney, etc.

Secondly, any model that wishes to be recognized in the same fashion that the historically proven universal model is has a burden to plead its case. Apparently, that has repeatedly failed in the U.S.

 

[Maize]

Wrong premise first of all:
Gays are not denied the ability to draw up and enact Wills, Medical Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney, etc.

They will be in my state.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

That means wills, powers of attorney, medicial decisions, joint property ownership, anything that gives the appearance of couplehood, etc,.... all the legal documents that gay and lesbian couples have now and have had to go through a lawyer to get can be challanged and deemed null and void under this law.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Wrong premise first of all:
Gays are not denied the ability to draw up and enact Wills, Medical Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney, etc.

Perhaps not so wrong; they can be denied hospital visitation rights.

Secondly, any model that wishes to be recognized in the same fashion that the historically proven universal model is has a burden to plead its case. Apparently, that has repeatedly failed in the U.S.

Model? These are people who are seeking equivalent rights, not some philosphical abstractions.

It is deeply anti-constitutional to put social engineering above rights.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I voted affirmative for 1 and 2 (and I gave #3 a pass if civil unions were EQUAL in every way to marriage apart from the use of the term marriage.)

The other alternative would be to remove ALL the special rights/privileges/benefits granted to married couples of the opposite sex.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Perhaps not so wrong; they can be denied hospital visitation rights.

And a suite can be filed in response of denying a currently recognized legal contract - even if they were... heterosexual.

Model? These are people who are seeking equivalent rights, not some philosphical abstractions.

In the U.S. ~ Seeking government promotion through forced enactment via judicial.

It is deeply anti-constitutional to put social engineering above rights.

I agree, thus the importance to clarify in a constitution as to what qualifies as a recognized marriage - if the government must be involved.

 

[Maize]

Secondly, any model that wishes to be recognized in the same fashion that the historically proven universal model is has a burden to plead its case. Apparently, that has repeatedly failed in the U.S.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying here... same sex couples should have to prove why they worthy to be treated as full citizens and should be allowed to legally protect themselves and their families (protections that are just handed to heterosexual couples) in order to get equal rights under the law?

 

[Maize]

I agree, thus the importance to clarify in a constitution as to what qualifies as a recognized marriage - if the government must be involved.

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who wish to discriminate and deny equal protections to all citizens?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

They will be in my state.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

That means wills, powers of attorney, medicial decisions, joint property ownership, anything that gives the appearance of couplehood, etc,.... all the legal documents that gay and lesbian couples have now and have had to go through a lawyer to get can be challanged and deemed null and void under this law.

That is an over-stated panic response.

See my State's constitution:

Michigan, Section 25 ~ Marriage
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.


It doesn't render ALL other legal contracts between two people void.

 

[TeddyKGB]

And a suite can be filed in response of denying a currently recognized legal contract - even if they were... heterosexual.

What? We're talking about visitation rights. Jane hardly has the time to undertake legal action to be allowed to see Mary in ICU immediately after her car accident.

In the U.S. ~ Seeking government promotion through forced enactment via judicial.

On the contrary, same-sex marriages are actively prohibited in 30+ states by the various "defense of marriage" acts.

I agree, thus the importance to clarify in a constitution as to what qualifies as a recognized marriage - if the government must be involved.

If you give one group certain rights, you need also provide sound reasoning why other groups should not also get those rights. "Because we don't wanna" falls somewhat short.