What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[The Midnight]

The most overused picture on Jazzfan..

just sayin'

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The most overused picture on Jazzfan..

just sayin'

But extremely accurate to all of your post.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The most overused picture on Jazzfan..

just sayin'

I don't disagree. Maybe most overused on the internet.

Apt in this case, though. The double face palm and the face palming face palm were unnecessary in this case. You probably don't even know why I used it.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

But extremely accurate to all of your post.

Well, accurate to that one particular one for what I think is a very obvious reason.

 

[Xsy]

Feel like quoting this post again.

"They can have Water, they just have to use that other drinking fountain."

Yeah, no. Equality or bust.

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a
state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for afamily member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

 

[The Midnight]

Feel like quoting this post again.

Ahh.. see I missed that post.

Thanks.

Edit: The way I see it - 5/6 issues listed there can be resolved by streamlining and making 'civil union' status consistent with 'marriage' across all states and government departments. The last issue you've mentioned - I don't agree with. Personally anyway I don't see 'civil union' as having anything to do with being a 2nd class citizen (once all the rights are evened out).

 

[DutchJazzer]

Feel like quoting this post again.

keep fighting brother

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Ahh.. see I missed that post.

Thanks.

Edit: The way I see it - 5/6 issues listed there can be resolved by streamlining and making 'civil union' status consistent with 'marriage' across all states and government departments. The last issue you've mentioned - I don't agree with. Personally anyway I don't see 'civil union' as having anything to do with being a 2nd class citizen (once all the rights are evened out).

If it's "just a word" then why are you so against calling it marriage?

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

While some hold the idea that marriage is a religious idea, others see it (rightfully so, since marriage isn't restricted to religion) as something else, yet still meaningful. And the state shouldn't be dictating symbolic definitions based on religious doctrine because it's secular and would violate Amendment 1.

True, but the state can and should place restriction on certain vices and illicit behaviors that it deems harmful to the public well being. You keep choosing to ignore the secular argument against same-sex marriage, and yet I believe this is the basis upon which most states deny same-sex couple marital status. You assume any state that doesn't place same-sex couples on par with married couples is doing so in deference to religious ideals and for no other reason. You're jumping to the conclusion that all those who do not support same-sex marriage are religious, which, quite frankly, is inaccurate.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

True, but the state can and should place restriction on certain vices and illicit behaviors that it deems harmful to the public well being. You keep choosing to ignore the secular argument against same-sex marriage, and yet I believe this is the basis upon which most states deny same-sex couple marital status. You assume any state that doesn't place same-sex couples on par with married couples is doing so in deference to religious ideals and for no other reason. You're jumping to the conclusion that all those who do not support same-sex marriage are religious, which, quite frankly, is inaccurate.

It's fairly accurate

 

[The Midnight]

If it's "just a word" then why are you so against calling it marriage?

Because to me (and I would say the majority of people in this country) still regard a 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

True, but the state can and should place restriction on certain vices and illicit behaviors that it deems harmful to the public well being. You keep choosing to ignore the secular argument against same-sex marriage, and yet I believe this is the basis upon which most states deny same-sex couple marital status. You assume any state that doesn't place same-sex couples on par with married couples is doing so in deference to religious ideals and for no other reason. You're jumping to the conclusion that all those who do not support same-sex marriage are religious, which, quite frankly, is inaccurate.

I'm trying to connect homosexual marriage to being harmful to the public well being. I fail to see a connection.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

It's fairly accurate

I don't consider myself religious.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Because to me (and I would say the majority of people in this country) still regard a 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman.

Why?

 

[The Midnight]

Why?

Because, at the basic level, it is the way nature has intended us to be. A man and a woman.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Because, at the basic level, it is the way nature has intended us to be.

If that was the case, polygamy would be legal because that's just as natural as monogamy, likely more so.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Because, at the basic level, it is the way nature has intended us to be. A man and a woman.

So your argument is that "it's just a word" but when someone wants to name it marriage it suddenly becomes more than just a word?

 

[The Midnight]

If that was the case, polygamy would be legal because that's just as natural as monogamy, likely more so.

It's the way God had intended us to be then.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

It's the way God had intended us to be then.

Then it becomes a religious statement, and the state can't enact laws on the basis of religion.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I don't consider myself religious.

Then you are probably in the minority. Not saying everyone who opposes gay marriage is religious, but I think most are. I'm sure there are polls out there.