Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Minnesota bill would institute universal civil unions, leave marriage to churches

While Minnesota state lawmakers consider a measure to legalize gay marriage and an alternative civil unions bill for gay couples, Democratic state Rep. Kim Norton has signed on to a third option: universal civil unions.

The bill would offer civil unions to gay and straight couples, getting the state government out of the marriage business altogether and making “certain that every Minnesotan couple gets a civil union in the state of Minnesota,” Norton told ABC’s KAALTV. The measure would leave marriage “to the churches that are offering them,” she added. Norton did not address how the measure, which was introduced on Thursday, would secure federal benefits for Minnesota couples or out-of-state recognition of civil partnerships.

Norton had previously supported the Republican-backed measure for gay civil unions, but withdrew her support after calling the bill unfair and unequal. This, she says, is a better compromise.

But not everyone agrees with her, including pro-marriage equality Democrats and Norton’s gay and pro-equal marriage constituents. “I think they are just trying to change the name to appease constituents in their areas and what they should be doing is educating their constituents,” Minnesotan Linda Kvall told KAALTV. Kvall also said that she does not want a civil union in lieu of marriage with her long-term partner: “She is my life. She is my partner. We raise my kids together as our kids, as our family. I think that marriage is one specific thing that two people love each other and want to be in a committed relationship,” she said.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5610/22/2013

Too reasonable to succeed?

by What it should have been all alongreply 104/26/2013

[quote]What it should have been all along

EXACTLY!!!

by What it should have been all alongreply 204/26/2013

This sounds really different. It means non-church married straights would have civil unions too, right?

by What it should have been all alongreply 304/26/2013

yes, this is what the Netherlands had on the books for decades

by What it should have been all alongreply 404/26/2013

The church doesn't own marriage. Why are you giving it to them?! Stop catering to these assholes, and make them pay taxes!

by What it should have been all alongreply 504/26/2013

[quote]Norton did not address how the measure, which was introduced on Thursday, would secure federal benefits for Minnesota couples or out-of-state recognition of civil partnerships.

Uh, I'd say this leaves a pretty big gaping hole. All Minnesota couples, straight and gay, would have a legal union whose status at the federal level is uncertain?

Really, straight people: Equality is coming. You just need to learn to deal. Let. It. Go. Get on with your lives as best you can.

by What it should have been all alongreply 604/26/2013

It's based on a historical lie, the idea that churches invented or own marriage. Yet we know marriage existed in Hammurabi's Civil Code, a thousand years before there were any Jews, let alone Christians, let alone Muslims.

by What it should have been all alongreply 704/26/2013

Maybe this is an appropriate fix, I don't know. I personally don't care what it's called. If the government wants to hijack the word "marriage" for straight religious people married in churches and mosques, fine by me... But the laws concerning marriage/civil unions better be fucking DNA duplicates, otherwise it's no good and we're back at square one.

by What it should have been all alongreply 804/26/2013

But they aren't R8.

by What it should have been all alongreply 904/26/2013

You should care, because the same lies they make about marriage, that they own it, they also make about the USA with their historically false claims of "Christian Nation."

by What it should have been all alongreply 1004/26/2013

Remember, in 1776, 80% of American families belonged to no religion whatever.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1104/26/2013

They're doing it backwards. Churches shouldn't be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. The sealing of the marriage contract belongs with the government. If you want to break a marriage contract, you don't go to a church. You go to the government where a judge oversees the breaking of the contract.

Remember when Tom Cruise and his awesome bride got married in a Scientology ceremony in Italy? It didn't happen. They were already married in a state office in L.A. before going to Italy.

Remember the big church wedding Eva Longoria had in France? She had been Mrs. Tony Parker for a day before that church ceremony. Their marriage took place in a government office.

When Grace Kelly walked up the aisle of the cathedral in Monaco, she was already Princess Grace for a full day. That church ceremony wasn't a marriage. The marriage took place in a government office on the previous day.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1204/26/2013

R12, you ARE aware that priests, ministers, whatever, are allowed to sign marriage certificates, correct? There does not need to be a "civil" ceremony for a marriage to be legal, currently.

But a "marriage" ceremony SHOULDN'T be legally binding nor should it be a conveyor of legal rights.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1304/26/2013

[quote]you ARE aware that priests, ministers, whatever, are allowed to sign marriage certificates, correct?

Golly, gee whiz, I really didn't know. Duh!

Sadly, you ARE NOT aware that that's the exact reason there's a problem. Church employees should NOT be allowed to sign marriage certificates. It should NOT be a church function. Marriage and divorce belong to the court system.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1404/27/2013

Which is exactly what I was saying, asshat.

That's why I posted this thread.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1504/27/2013

You still don't get it OP. You want to elevate same-sex civil marriage to be equal to church marriage. That is NOT the way it should be. That's backwards.

All marriage ceremonies should be legally binding.

All marriage ceremonies should be performed ONLY by the government.

All marriage ceremonies should be civil functions, NOT church functions.

If a church wants to have a wedding ceremony to give the couple a religious blessing, that should NOT hold any more government significance than Confirmation, Holy Orders, or First Communion.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1604/27/2013

Who would have thought Minnesota would be the one to finally offer up the best solution?

by What it should have been all alongreply 1704/27/2013

what if some churches will marry Same Sex couples? Doesn't that just mean that SS marriage is essentially legal?

by What it should have been all alongreply 1804/27/2013

Not at all reasonable. Stupid in fact.

Religion doesn't own the word marriage.

In fact, there has never been a church that has performed a marriage ever. What happens in churches are WEDDINGS. You don't become married until you sign the Marriage License from the state.

by What it should have been all alongreply 1904/27/2013

Gay men can already have religious ceremonies (e.g. "Weddings") ... plenty of churches will perform them. Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarians, Liberal Quakers, Reform Jewish Synagogue, a bunch of Episcopalian branches, the United Church of Christ, etc.

Marriage Equality is about equality of civil rights.

Two atheists (the man having had a vasectomy, the women a hysterectomy) can go down to City Hall and get "Married". This PROVES that marriage has nothing to do with religion or reproduction.

Marriage actually pre-dates the Christian religion. They do not own the word, and do not get to dictate who gets to participate in those 1000+ civil rights and responsibilities.

Also, these same intolerant ignorant bigots that don't want gays to have marriage equality also don't want them to have civil unions. Oh sure, they SAY they do, but these same people are NOTORIOUS for constantly moving the goal-posts. You give them an inch, they'll trample you for miles. You cannot appease them, so why try?

Especially when it's just a clear MINORITY of the population that feels that way, and that minority is shrinking EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Why go through ALL the legal trouble and uncertainty and social expense of trying to rename "marriage" to "civil unions" and then rename "weddings" to "marriages. Do you think people will suddenly switch terms? Nope.

The legal history and precedent is there for marriage already. It's ALREADY a civil contract. There's already a SEPARATE religious ceremony (the wedding ceremony). Trying to convert all marriages to civil unions is a waste of time and effort, duplicating something that already exists, and for no good reason.

People who think this is a good idea or a good compromise are just fucking idiots.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2004/27/2013

In the late 1950s, several small southern cities simply stopped offering public transit rather than desegregate. That's pretty much what this is.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2104/27/2013

[quote]Marriage actually pre-dates the Christian religion. They do not own the word,

That's right, but there is nobody telling them they don't own marriage. It's time to eliminate churches from the business of state. Ministers and priests should not be allowed to oversee marriage contracts.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2204/27/2013

R21 nails it.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2304/27/2013

No matter how they call it, civil union IS civil marriage.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2404/27/2013

R24, it really isn't, actually.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2504/27/2013

If you're in a marriage, you're married.

If you're in a civil union, are you united? Unionized? What?

by What it should have been all alongreply 2604/27/2013

This is like the poor white people who vote Republican just so blacks don't get welfare.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2704/27/2013

[quote]No matter how they call it, civil union IS civil marriage.

Not under the law it ain't!

by What it should have been all alongreply 2804/27/2013

R26. Are you after a word or equal protection? If civil unions can give the same benefits as marriage then who gives a fuck what it is called.

by What it should have been all alongreply 2904/27/2013

R29, Civil Unions won't do that. That's the point.

Read R20 and R21 again.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3004/27/2013

If, big if, that is the case R30, we should be working to get civil unions treated as equal. Marriage is always going to stir emotions and protest that civil unions will not. The Christians want to think marriage is some idiot concept blessed by god. DOMA is not going to get struck down because it would imply churches have to perform marriages for anyone. Mark my words, this will not end well. Pushing for civil unions to be legally equal to "marriage" is the right course.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3104/27/2013

[quote]Marriage is always going to stir emotions and protest that civil unions will not.

Bullshit.

Again, read R20 and R21 again. Until you get it.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3204/27/2013

R32. Those posts do nothing to counter my opinion.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3304/27/2013

R33, yes, they do. You're just not hearing them. Or comprehending them.

Your idea is fucking stupid. Trying to appease ignorant bigots is a fool's game. We already have nearly a dozen states legalizing full marriage rights, and over a dozen countries doing so. With no issues.

So go back and read them again, until you get it. Because you're not getting it.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3404/27/2013

[quote]Are you after a word or equal protection? If civil unions can give the same benefits as marriage then who gives a fuck what it is called.

My god, you're so fucking retarded.

Separate-but-equal is un-American! Are you American?! Time to leave if you are. We need to get EVERYTHING straights get. PERIOD. We're owed it. Getting 'marriage' is of the utmost importance: the word, and the benefits.

How would you feel about blacks and whites marrying and only getting 'civil unions'?

BTW, civil unions are not recognized outside the US when it comes to things like adoption.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3504/27/2013

[quote]If, big if, that is the case [R30], we should be working to get civil unions treated as equal. Marriage is always going to stir emotions and protest that civil unions will not. The Christians want to think marriage is some idiot concept blessed by god. DOMA is not going to get struck down because it would imply churches have to perform marriages for anyone. Mark my words, this will not end well. Pushing for civil unions to be legally equal to "marriage" is the right course.

F&F

Get this idiot off of her, PRONTO!

by What it should have been all alongreply 3604/27/2013

R34. Of course that means close to nothing as it applies only in those states and is not recognized at the federal level,. You should also read more.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3704/27/2013

r37, you're time here is limited. Have your fun while you still can. You're going to be blocked.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3804/27/2013

R36. You are a sad sack.

by What it should have been all alongreply 3904/27/2013

[quote]DOMA is not going to get struck down because it would imply churches have to perform marriages for anyone.

It does no such thing. That is a blatant lie.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4004/27/2013

r39 is self-loathing, and we're the sad sacks. Bwahahahaha!!!

by What it should have been all alongreply 4104/27/2013

R17 = R29 = R31 = R33 = R37 = R39 = An ignorant ass who babbles on about shit she doesn't understand at all.

Seriously, stop while you're behind.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4204/27/2013

r40, just F&F it.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4304/27/2013

R38. Picture me giving a fuck. You really need to understand that not everyone sees the world the way you do. Too bad you can't engage in conversation without running to mommie,

by What it should have been all alongreply 4404/27/2013

R39/R40, etc. look to your left and look to your right. I'm guessing you see no one, as you have no one in your life. I'm looking to my right where I see my partner of 17 years, since we were 23. Will marriage fix your loneliness? No.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4504/27/2013

The Freeptard at r44 doesn't know when to stop embarrassing itself.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4604/27/2013

[quote]You really need to understand that not everyone sees the world the way you do.

Yes. We recognize that there are stupid delusional idiots like you, who refuse to see reality and live in a fantasy world of their own creation.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4704/27/2013

[quote]Will marriage fix your loneliness? No.

Nice strawman. Stop being an idiot. Marriage isn't about loneliness. It's about civil rights.

I'll say it again: Read R20 and R21 again. You clearly have some sort of mental block, and reality isn't sinking in for some reason.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4804/27/2013

R47. Is reality everyone supporting gay marriage? BTW. I'm still posting.

by What it should have been all alongreply 4904/27/2013

When interracial marriage was legalized, over 90% of the population was against it.

It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. Rights are rights, period. They're not subject to mob mentality or popular votes. That's why they call them rights.

This pathological need for you to cater to and kow-tow to ignorant bigots is just weird. Especially since we know damn well it won't work anyway.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5004/27/2013

I call it realism. You think whatever you want I respect that

by What it should have been all alongreply 5104/27/2013

But it isn't realistic at all. That's the whole point.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5204/27/2013

[quote]If, big if, that is the case [R30]

It is the case. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

[quote]we should be working to get civil unions treated as equal.

Why? There's no point, since the vast majority of people, gay and straight, are opposed. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" everywhere is supported even less than is same-sex marriage. It's a stupid and completely unnecessary idea. And, as a compromise, it's worthless, since the people who oppose same-sex marriage are also opposed to same-sex civil unions.

[quote]Marriage is always going to stir emotions and protest that civil unions will not.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Those strongly opposed to same-sex marriages are just as strongly opposed to *any* recognition of same-sex couples. Not only that but the younger generation, by and large, really doesn't give a fuck. It's only the older dinosaurs who care and they're dying out. The war is already over and we've won.

[quote]The Christians want to think marriage is some idiot concept blessed by god.

So? Let them. There are more and more Christians who think that that "idiot concept blessed by god" should also be available to same-sex couples.

[quote]DOMA is not going to get struck down because it would imply churches have to perform marriages for anyone.

Oh, bullshit. This is just nonsensical garbage, disconnected from reality. It might or might not get struck down by the current court but it won't do a damn thing to any churches.

[quote]Mark my words, this will not end well.

LOL... It *already* has ended well! We won the war, even if there are still battles to be fought. It's just a matter of time, at this point; the outcome is inevitable.

[quote]Pushing for civil unions to be legally equal to "marriage" is the right course.

Not at all. It's a pointless exercise and a waste of time.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5304/27/2013

[quote]Changing "marriage" to "civil union" everywhere is supported even less than is same-sex marriage.

Not a surprise considering all the religions who falsely claim they invented marriage. It's time for separation of church and state and churches should have NO RIGHT to legalize a marriage any more than they deal in granting a divorce.

When it comes to support for what is RIGHT, don't forget that when interracial marriage was legalized, over 90% of the population was against it.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5404/28/2013

Looks like the Minnesota legislature is doing the right thing.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5505/09/2013

Marriage was always a civil institution co-opted by religion.

by What it should have been all alongreply 5610/22/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.