skullkrusher: El Pachuco: And you're okay with your government having a secret list of its citizens to be killed without legal process?

that's not fair. He can't answer that. You didn't specify whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

runin800m: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I guess I just didn't realize that Al-Awlaki, his 16 year old son, and that other American were responsible for 9/11. If I had realized that then, obviously, I would have understood that they fell under the AUMF, which give authority to use the military to go after those that are responsible for 9/11.

You should probably re-read the AUMF then. It's pretty clear.

runin800m: Supporting this disgusts me and every single person who considers themselves liberal

I'll be sure to send a card.

El Pachuco: And you're okay with your government having a secret list of its citizens to be killed without legal process?

They had as much legal process as every other person killed under the 9/11 AUMF. Having a US passport does not give you magical protection from military action.

lennavan: And actually, gay people can visit their loved ones in the hospital thanks to Obama (well, at least the hospitals that want any federal dollars like Medicare and Medicaid which is almost all of them).

I was unaware of that. Good on Obama. There's still a wealth of problems though, like how gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates; if one of the partners dies, the other has absolutely no legal recourse to do anything that the dead partner's family doesn't allow.

Biden misspeaks. Bush misthinks.

CheekyMonkey: Slaxl: I hate that honesty is the worst policy in politics today. I also hate that being tolerant and accepting of different people is also apparently a bad thing.

I hate that the USA has a sufficiently high population of bigoted cretins (I'm looking at you, fundie "Christian" dickbags) that Obama has to obfuscate his position on gay marriage.

Ask the 99% of black folks who voted for him if they feel the same way.

sprawl15: El Pachuco: And you're okay with your government having a secret list of its citizens to be killed without legal process?

They had as much legal process as every other person killed under the 9/11 AUMF. Having a US passport does not give you magical protection from military action.


For that to be true, the AUMF must grant the President sole powers to kill anyone he wants any time.

Even if Congress wrote and passed a law saying, "the President has sole powers to kill anyone he wants any time," the problem is, there's this pesky thing called the Bill of Rights prohibiting just that. You should read it some time, it's kind of important.

The problem we currently have is, the list is secret, the government fights any challenge to the list by invoking state security, and after someone is killed they can't contest it any more.

But it is interesting that there's a lot of citizens, you included, who don't seem to mind the government having a death list.

El Pachuco: But it is interesting that there's a lot of citizens, you included, who don't seem to mind the government having a death list.

I suspect that if it was a republican president you'd be completely onboard with killing terrorists when an opportunity presents.

Thunderpipes: CheekyMonkey: Slaxl: I hate that honesty is the worst policy in politics today. I also hate that being tolerant and accepting of different people is also apparently a bad thing.

I hate that the USA has a sufficiently high population of bigoted cretins (I'm looking at you, fundie "Christian" dickbags) that Obama has to obfuscate his position on gay marriage.

Ask the 99% of black folks who voted for him if they feel the same way.

Who would they vote for instead of him? The cracker?

/God I feel dirty for writing that

It''s great how republicans see this as some sort of gaffe. It really isn't. It is only a gaffe if democrats tell Biden to hush up which I do not think they have.

Biden is actually a really smart dude. I wish people would stop taking one sentence out of context, cause the guy talks in 8 minute increments. If you actually wanted to learn something about policy, you could listen to one of his entire briefings. Go know more about Joe Biden.

OregonVet: Slaxl: I hate that honesty is the worst policy in politics today. I also hate that being tolerant and accepting of different people is also apparently a bad thing.

Agreed. There is a number of things that he's afraid will cost him the election so he's keeping them in "evolution" mode. That's a shame. I think it be better if he just came out and stated his position. Afraid of losing some Independent voters? How about those of us who support gay marriage? I felt he did a better job than Clinton regarding gays in the military. I honestly was proud of that as a veteran who saw the fearful life my friends had to endure. Perhaps he supports equal opportunity for the gay community just short of marriage.

I wanted to like him, I really did. But then Obama ended up being a typical politician, and one of the dirtier ones, even. The press has done him no favors putting him on the pedestal (pedal stool). Just makes people angrier.

El Pachuco: For that to be true, the AUMF must grant the President sole powers to kill anyone he wants any time.

It does. As I said, go read it. In fact, I'll just post the relevant part here so you don't have to strain yourself trying to figure out google:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

El Pachuco: But it is interesting that there's a lot of citizens, you included, who don't seem to mind the government having a death list.

I already know you're unable to understand the distinction between 'this is constitutional and al-Awlaki was afforded due process' and 'this is founded on sound principles'. You don't need to repeat yourself.

sprawl15: lennavan: And actually, gay people can visit their loved ones in the hospital thanks to Obama (well, at least the hospitals that want any federal dollars like Medicare and Medicaid which is almost all of them).

I was unaware of that. Good on Obama. There's still a wealth of problems though, like how gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates; if one of the partners dies, the other has absolutely no legal recourse to do anything that the dead partner's family doesn't allow.

Well, they are more than roommates. Some states have domestic partner laws and federal employees have some benefits/rights as well from an executive order under Obama.

lennavan: Well, they are more than roommates. Some states have domestic partner laws and federal employees have some benefits/rights as well from an executive order under Obama.

Unless your point is that gay people already have identical rights, I fail to see why you're contesting that achieving identical rights is the primary goal.

Politics are more important than issues. Welcome to the real world.

It amazes me sometimes that more people don't see this guy for what he is. Not a secret muslin socialist who will make us all get gay married, but just a plain old politician like any other.

olddinosaur: he also says there are 57 States in the Union, and no one calls him down on it.

Yeah, no one called Obama out on that. You're the first person to ever mention it.

olddinosaur: Sarah Palin hit a typo when she was tweeting, saying "refudiate" when she either meant "repudiate" or possibly "refute." The mass media immediately jumped on her for it.

She also stipulated that from some parts of Alaska, you can see Russia on a clear day; 42 miles across the Bering Straits. I believe the curvature of the earth causes a 195--foot bulge in the ocean; figures not exact. From a small hill, the other side can in fact easily be seen on a clear day.

This was misquoted on a satirical TV show to say that you can see Russia from her home in Wasilla; yet the satire has public credibility, the true statement does not.

Meanwhile, Obama says "Marine corpse" when he means "Marine Corps," and gets a free pass; he also says there are 57 States in the Union, and no one calls him down on it.

Double standard as usual?

Good luck finding a day in the last year when "57 states" isn't mentioned at least once on the Politics tab.

baggins2000: I can easily imagine Bush being a rocket sturgeon.

After reading that, I decided to GIS "rocket sturgeon" and see what turned up. Sadly, didn't find anything related.

I did, however, find the Sturgeon General:

LibertyHiller: olddinosaur: Sarah Palin hit a typo when she was tweeting, saying "refudiate" when she either meant "repudiate" or possibly "refute." The mass media immediately jumped on her for it.

She also stipulated that from some parts of Alaska, you can see Russia on a clear day; 42 miles across the Bering Straits. I believe the curvature of the earth causes a 195--foot bulge in the ocean; figures not exact. From a small hill, the other side can in fact easily be seen on a clear day.

This was misquoted on a satirical TV show to say that you can see Russia from her home in Wasilla; yet the satire has public credibility, the true statement does not.

Meanwhile, Obama says "Marine corpse" when he means "Marine Corps," and gets a free pass; he also says there are 57 States in the Union, and no one calls him down on it.

Double standard as usual?

Good luck finding a day in the last year when "57 states" isn't mentioned at least once on the Politics tab.

Or "corpseman", for that matter.

/also, Palin cited the fact that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska as evidence she has foreign policy experience. Because that's all you need, you see.

"My views on this are evolving." is infinitely more respectable than "X is the way it is, and all those other guys don't know what they are talking about" followed up by "Y is the way it is, and all those other guys don't know what they are talking about, also how dare you suggest I said X the other day" especially when you have a campaign manager making etchasketch comparisons.

Il Douchey: Show of hands: Who here has heard that Joe Biden failed the Delaware Bar Exam eleven times before passing it?

And who has heard that Il Douchy licks santorum off his lips each night at work?

/Asking the question doesn't make it true

sprawl15: lennavan: Well, they are more than roommates. Some states have domestic partner laws and federal employees have some benefits/rights as well from an executive order under Obama.

Unless your point is that gay people already have identical rights, I fail to see why you're contesting that achieving identical rights is the primary goal.

When did I contest that? I'm saying your post does not reflect reality. I agree with your conclusion but you're being dishonest in your portrayal. Specifically, this is a load of horseshiat:

sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates

Why would you put out such a dishonest argument?

Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have been recognized in Wisconsin since August 3, 2009 despite same-sex marriage and "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals" being banned by Wisconsin statutes and a constitutional amendment in 2006.

Link

Funny thing is, if Biden had a (R) behind his name, same people who defend him now would lambast him. And vice versa, of course.

Seriously, the guy is evil. Look up his voting record.

machoprogrammer: Funny thing is, if Biden had a (R) behind his name, same people who defend him now would lambast him. And vice versa, of course.

Seriously, the guy is evil. Look up his voting record.

Evil huh?

lennavan: I agree with your conclusion but you're being dishonest in your portrayal.

The 'portrayal' is that gay people are not equal under the law. Saying that there are exceptions to the generally true examples I'm giving doesn't change that. Maybe you just don't know the difference between an absolute statement and a general statement?

lennavan: Why would you put out such a dishonest argument?

'Dishonest' would be using one state's exception to argue that gay partners in states that don't allow marriage aren't generally considered any more than roommates. I mean, cool for Wisconsin and all.

sprawl15: The 'portrayal' is that gay people are not equal under the law.

No, your portrayal is gay people are the equivalent of roommates under the law. I corrected you and you have now changed your goalposts to gay people are not equal under the law. By all means, I applaud your changing of the goalposts, that was what I wanted you to do. But don't be a dick about it and pretend that was where they were all along:

sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates

sprawl15: 'Dishonest' would be using one state's exception

Yes, one state's exception. What an honest argument you've got there. Shame if something happened to it.


Civil Unions

Delaware| Hawaii | Illinois | Vermont | New Hampshire | Connecticut | New Jersey |Rhode Island

Delaware

Civil unions were approved by the Delaware legislature in April 2011 and signed by Governor Markell on May 11, 2011. The law (SB 30) recognizes the legal relationship of civil union and provides for the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as married persons under Delaware law. It does not require any religious institution to perform solemnizations of civil unions. The law takes effect January 1, 2012.


Hawaii
Civil unions were approved by the Hawaii Legislature in February 2011, and signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie on February 23, 2011. Senate Bill 232, which will be known as Act 1, makes same-sex and opposite-sex couples eligible for civil union recognition beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The law grants same-sex couples the same rights as married couples.

In 1998, Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment giving legislators the authority to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Civil unions are a legal partnership, open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, and no religious institution or leader would be required to perform or recognize them. Civil unions, domestic partnerships and same-sex marriages performed in other states would be recognized as civil unions in Hawaii.

Illinois
The Illinois General Assembly approved SB 1716 (Public Act 96-1513) in December 2010, and Governor Pat Quinn signed it into law on January 31, 2011. The bill, referred to as the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, allows same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into civil unions, giving them some of the same benefits available to married couples, including the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, disposition of a deceased loved one's remains and the right to make decisions about a loved one's medical care.

Vermont
(Note: Vermont passed same sex marriage in May 2009. As of September 1, 2009, civil unions are no longer available. However, civil unions entered into prior to September 1, 2009 will remain valid.)

Among the rights and responsibilities available to Vermont residents who enter into a civil union are:

Responsibility for supporting each other "to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons";
State tax benefits;
Improved access to family health insurance policies and joint credit;
The right to leave work to care for an ill partner;
Co-parenting privileges and responsibilities for any child who becomes the child of one or both partners during the civil union;
Automatic preference for the guardianship of, and medical decision making for, a partner should he or she become incapacitated;
Inheritance rights (even without a will); and
Equal access to state separation, divorce, child custody, child support and property division laws if the civil union ends.

More on Marriage Equality Act in Vermont


New Hampshire

(Note: The New Hampshire legislature passed same sex marriage legislation, HB 0436, in May 2009 which will go into effect on January 1, 2010. All civil unions will be merged into marriage no later than January, 2011, unless otherwise annulled or dissolved.)

In 2007 the Legislature passed a bill that created the legal status of civil unions. Parties to a civil union are entitled to all of the state-level spousal rights and responsibilities. Governor Lynch signed the bill into law (Chapter 457-A: Civil Unions), and it became effective January 1, 2008.

Connecticut

(Note: Connecticut now allows same sex marriage. On October 1, 2010, civil unions will cease to be provided and existing civil unions will be automatically converted to marriages.)

Same-sex couples in Connecticut are able to enter into civil unions thanks to a law that went into effect October 1, 2005. Civil unions offer same-sex couples some of the benefits of marriage under state law, but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal government.

The civil unions bill, SB 963, was approved by the Connecticut Legislature in April 2005 and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Before passing it, however, the state House of Representatives attached an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Connecticut was the first state to establish civil unions voluntarily, without having been ordered to do so by a court.


New Jersey (allows both Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships)

Same-sex couples in New Jersey will be able to enter into civil unions beginning in February 2007. Civil unions offer same-sex couples state-level spousal rights and responsibilities, but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal government. The domestic partnership law, Chapter 103, that was passed in 2004 will be available only to opposite-sex couples over the age of 62.

The New Jersey Assembly passed a same sex marriage bill in December, 2009. The measure failed in the Senate in early 2010.


Rhode Island

Rhode Island General Assembly passed legislation allowing civil unions in June 2011. The bill, H6103, was signed into law by Governor Chafee and takes effect July 1, 2011. Those who enter into a civil union are offered the same benefits as provided to married couples.

Return to Top
Domestic Partnerships

| California | Oregon | Washington | Maine | Hawaii | District of Columbia | Nevada | Wisconsin |


California

California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on January 1, 2005.

Oregon

As of January 1, 2008, same-sex couples in Oregon will be able to enter into domestic partnerships that provide the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marriage under state law, thanks to the Oregon Family Fairness Act, Public Law Number 99, Oregon HB 2007 (2007). Domestic partnerships will offer same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under state law, but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the partnerships will be recognized by other states or the federal government. (*Note: Law has not yet taken effect due to a federal court decision delaying implementation issued December, 2007.)

Washington

With a 2009 expansion of the law (Chapter 26.60 RCW) originally passed in 2007, registered domestic partners were afforded nearly all statewide spousal rights. However, this expansion was challenged by a ballot measure to repeal the additional benefits, Referendum 71, which passed in November, 2009. Washington's domestic partner law remains unchanged and provides a full scope of domestic partner benefits.

Maine

(Note: The Maine legislature passed same sex marriage in 2009. However, the law was challenged by a ballot measure, Initiative 1, which passed November 3rd, 2009. The law was subsequently repealed.)

The law (Chapter 701, Title 22, Section 2710) allows registered domestic partners are eligible for limited rights, including:

Inheritance without a will
Making funeral and burial arrangements
Entitlement to be named a guardian or conservator if partner becomes incapacitated or to be named a representative to administer a deceased partner's estate
Entitlement to make organ and tissue donation
Explicit protection in the state's domestic violence laws

Hawaii

In 1997 the Hawaii Legislature passed a law that allows same-sex couples to enter into a reciprocal beneficiary relationship. Couples secure the following benefits from a reciprocal beneficiary relationship: inheritance without a will, ability to sue for the wrongful death of their reciprocal beneficiary, hospital visitation and health care decisions, consent to postmortem exams, loan eligibility, property rights (including joint tenancy), tort liability and protection under Hawaii domestic violence laws.

The Hawaii Reciprocal Beneficiaries law was enacted July 8, 1997. The law provides limited state rights to same-sex couples, relatives and friends. The law "represents a commitment to provide substantially similar government rights to those couples who are barred by law from marriage." Among the benefits extended to non-married reciprocal beneficiaries under the law are: property rights, including joint tenancy; the right to visit your partner in a hospital and make health care decisions for her or him; ability to inherit property without a will; and protection under Hawaii's domestic violence laws. (Hawaii's law establishes reciprocal beneficiaries, which is not limited to same-sex couples and can be used to contractually bind two parties, even those who may be already related, such as a brother and sister.)

District of Columbia

(Note: In 2009, the DC Council passed a law recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states. At the end of 2009, the DC Council passed a resolution to allow same sex marriage in the District of Columbia. )

In 1992 the District of Columbia City Council passed a law that allows unmarried couples to register as domestic partners. Since that time, several rights have been added, including hospital visitation, the right to make medical decisions, the right to control the remains of a deceased partner, the right to take sick leave to take care of a partner and the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner.

(DC's domestic partner registry was created in law in 1992, but Congress prohibited DC from expending any public money on the registry. This ban was lifted in 2002.)

Citations: D.C. Code §1-307.68; §1-612.31, 32(b); §3-413; §16-1001; §5-113.31, 33; §21-2210; §32-501, 701, 704, 705(a), 705(b), 705(c), 705(d), 706; §42-1102, 3404.02(b)(c), 3651.05(c)(3); §47-858.03; §47-902; §50-1501.02(e)(4) and various other sections of the D.C. Code.

Nevada

In June, 2009, the Nevada Assembly overrode the Governor's veto establishing a statewide registry for domestic partners with Sentate Bill No. 283. The benefits are substantially comparable to the rights and responsibilities afforded in traditional marriage, though employers are not mandated to provide health care coverage for domestic partners.

Wisconsin

In June, 2009, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law (2009 Wisconsin Act 28, Assembly Bill 75, Section 774) establishing a statewide domestic partnership registry. Registered domestic partners in Wisconsin are now afforded some of the spousal benefits of marriage, including: inheritance and survivor protections, family and medical leave, medical/hospital visitation rights and exemption from the real estate transfer fee.

Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. The amendment includes a clause that bans any legal status that is identical or substantially similar to marriage. Wisconsin is the first state with this type of constitutional amendment to also establish a domestic partner registry. The registry is being challenged in court.

Sprawl, your statement was incorrect, and lennavan provided evidence of such. I didn't read his posts as saying anything beyond that. You could accuse him of being a little anal, but that's about it.


FWIW, saying something like "its not quite as bad for gays as you say" should not be taken as "I think gays have nothing to complain about".

Bloody William: beefoe: the Alaskan island of Little Diomede can see the Russian island of Big Diomede, located across the International Date Line some two and a half miles away.

Not the farking Diomedes again. Each island is 20-30 miles from the mainland. Saying you can see Russia from Alaska is only accurate in the most pedantically technical way. And now someone's going to post a picture of Hermes from Futurama.

Here's Palin's original quote, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" so it's not being pedantic in saying that you can see Russia from and "Island off Alaska". BTW the Diomedes info comes from the Christian Science Monitor by the way of Slate, neither of which are exactly in the back pocket of the GOP.

There are plenty of things not to like about Palin to have to make some up. It just makes people not pay attention to you.

Biden is assassination insurance for Obama. He's the Democrat's loveable goofball. Everybody knows his foot is firmly in his mouth. None of this is news.

The interesting thing here is that nobody actually thinks he's an idiot; he just says a lot of idiotic things in public. This is slightly different than Dubya, or, going farther back, Qualye, or Reagan deep into his second term when his mind was starting to go.

lennavan: Yes, one state's exception. What an honest argument you've got there. Shame if something happened to it.

sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates

It's fascinating that you specifically go out of your way not to bold this section, then go ahead and list a bunch of states (and DC, amusingly enough) that recognize civil unions as 'proof' that it's wrong. Including everything in that long list that you apparently didn't read, you've only offered one state that doesn't recognize their partnerships and still treats them as more than roommates: Wisconsin.

You're not just missing my point, you're missing your own point.

lennavan: I corrected you and you have now changed your goalposts to gay people are not equal under the law. By all means, I applaud your changing of the goalposts, that was what I wanted you to do. But don't be a dick about it and pretend that was where they were all along:

That's where it was before you started your stupid little tangent:

sprawl15: There's a whole lot of pain and heartache caused by their inability to be equal under the law.

Good to see that you're coming right out and saying that you started a tangent just to say that the tangent you started was irrelevant to the point you interrupted, which I should have stayed on instead of responding to you. Fantastic work there, Lou.

bdub77: You've basically made my point for me, that marriage as a religious institution is intertwined with the state. And I'm not wrong. The fact that marriage is a civil union (as the US recognizes it currently) doesn't make it wrong to propose that you separate the concepts. Let the language evolve, not the concept.

You're trying to have it both ways here - odd since you readily admit that marriage is a civil union - and thus what you're proposing is actually just a linguistic change that isn't widely desired. I'm not sure how that makes it a relevant part of any discussion of same-sex marriage. If you want people to not use the term "marriage" anymore, that's a separate debate. Same-sex couples do want to be able to use the term "marriage", the terminology we use for two people who are espoused. Being married, in most peoples' minds, is a lot more important than being "civil unioned". Like it or not, you're unlikely to overturn the value people place on the concept of marriage, gay or straight.

The reason I prefer the term civil unions is because people in this country can't accept the fact that marriage is in fact a civil right.

If marriage is a civil right why would you propose that we roll it back for everyone? If people don't see marriage is a civil right, the answer isn't that everyone gets a lesser status (as most people would see it), it's eliminating prejudice and convincing the doubters that marriage is, in fact, a civil right.

beefoe: Here's Palin's original quote, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" so it's not being pedantic in saying that you can see Russia from and "Island off Alaska". BTW the Diomedes info comes from the Christian Science Monitor by the way of Slate, neither of which are exactly in the back pocket of the GOP.

There are plenty of things not to like about Palin to have to make some up. It just makes people not pay attention to you.

Well, how about this: You can definitely see russia from alaska, and I'll even pretend that there are lots of russians and lots of alaskans hanging out on the islands that see one another, but I still think she's a foolish ignorant naive moron to cite that as something on her foreign policy resume, and thus the comment, even if you go with the SNL version, still is valid for mocking her dumb ass.

sprawl15: sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates
It's fascinating that you specifically go out of your way not to bold this section, then go ahead and list a bunch of states (and DC, amusingly enough) that recognize civil unions as 'proof' that it's wrong. Including everything in that long list that you apparently didn't read, you've only offered one state that doesn't recognize their partnerships and still treats them as more than roommates: Wisconsin.

You are losing hard right now man.

He named a bunch of states that don't allow gay marriage, but DO allow civil unions. You aren't suggesting civil unions ARE gay marriages are you?

If you are then the same thing you biatched Lenn out for* would apply to your conflation of a civil union and a gay marriage.
If you don't see them as the same, then naming a state without gay marriage but with civil unions which treats gays as more than roommates is a valid disproving of your statement, regardless of which parts of it he boldfaced.


*sprawl15: Unless your point is that gay people already have identical rights, I fail to see why you're contesting that achieving identical rights is the primary goal.

Smackledorfer: He named a bunch of states that don't allow gay marriage, but DO allow civil unions. You aren't suggesting civil unions ARE gay marriages are you?

Go back to the point where lennavan started the tangent:

sprawl15: The 'reason' not to use ['marriage' over 'civil union'] is solely practical. If we have to use a stupid term to overcome the bigotry and let gay people be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, I'd much rather see the latter than put it off to get the right word at the top of the certificate. There's a whole lot of pain and heartache caused by their inability to be equal under the law. That's a material problem that can be fixed much more simply by using the term 'civil union' because of how it undermines the bigots' arguments.

Try reading a bit of the conversation, and when you're caught up let me know. I'll be glad to answer your questions once they aren't retarded.

sprawl15: Smackledorfer: He named a bunch of states that don't allow gay marriage, but DO allow civil unions. You aren't suggesting civil unions ARE gay marriages are you?

Go back to the point where lennavan started the tangent:

sprawl15: The 'reason' not to use ['marriage' over 'civil union'] is solely practical. If we have to use a stupid term to overcome the bigotry and let gay people be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, I'd much rather see the latter than put it off to get the right word at the top of the certificate. There's a whole lot of pain and heartache caused by their inability to be equal under the law. That's a material problem that can be fixed much more simply by using the term 'civil union' because of how it undermines the bigots' arguments.

Try reading a bit of the conversation, and when you're caught up let me know. I'll be glad to answer your questions once they aren't retarded.

Oh, I read it, and it just has nothing to do with this portion of your tiff with lennavan and your inability to simply say "yup, I mistated that bit, that isn't what I meant" instead of throwing a fit about his contradicting a statement you wrote. So ya, my point stands, and you clearly missed it by a mile if you think saying 'we should push for civil unions because its easier' has anything to do with my previous post. Just admit you were technically incorrect, call lennavan anal, and move on :P


But, if you want to discuss the civil union vs. marriage bit: I understand the argument that a civil union OUGHT to be the equal of marriage, but I also understand that it ISN'T the equal of marriage. It could be, one day, but right now it isn't.

Although to be honest I don't really believe that the majority of those who say they are against gay marriage because the word "marriage" is magically special etc, etc. I believe its a flimsy excuse for them to be bigots without admitting it, and that they won't be lining up to support civil unions even if you give them that concession to shut them up. What you will be doing is opening a can of worms in which thousands of laws throughout the country use the term marriage and it takes decades to fully sort things out such that a civil union and a marriage aren't separate but equal. I'm not sure its worth all the extra money, rewriting of laws, various things being fought over in court as everyone tries to show that this or that reference to a married couple does or does not apply to a civil union.

At the same time, we obviously won't get away with changing all legal unions to civil unions and getting rid of marriage and thus getting around separate but equal that way, because those same "zomg marriage is OUR word" folks wouldn't let it go and the bigots would hop on board that train too.

With that said, I don't hold the reigns of this movement anyways, and I support every push for either civil union or gay marriage anyways. I've never had a change to make a voting choice to either decide between the two or to decide between two representatives taking one side vs. the other. /shrug

Lumpmoose: There's no way Obama is going to use the word "evolving" at a debate. What the fark is he waiting for?

We all know Obama for marriage equality (because he's not some kind of idiot hillbilly), as are most Americans. He should just do the right thing and stand up for civil rights and he will have nothing to regret. Nothing worse than being on the wrong side of history.

Is it too late for Obama to pick someone else for VP?

spiderpaz: Is it too late for Obama to pick someone else for VP?

Why do you think he'd want to?

sprawl15: that recognize civil unions as 'proof' that it's wrong.

Because gay marriage is banned you farkwad. Read the farking sections I posted, specifically parts where only gays can get a civil union. Now recall the phrase "separate but equal." Do you need a reminder why separate but equal is a bad thing?

sprawl15: sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates

It's fascinating that you specifically go out of your way not to bold this section, then go ahead and list a bunch of states (and DC, amusingly enough) that recognize civil unions as 'proof' that it's wrong.

Here is the thing - you are so derped up right now, you just argued "separate but equal is okay." First - no, it's actually not. Second - THESE ARE NOT EQUAL DIPSHIAT.

sprawl15: you've only offered one state that doesn't recognize their partnerships

Whoa friend, whoa. Partnerships? Wow those goalposts have moved so farking far.

Here is where we started:

sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage are considered nothing more than roommates

Here is where we are now:

sprawl15: gay people in states that don't allow gay marriage partnerships are considered nothing more than roommates are not equal under the law

See what you did you dipshiat?

Citrate1007: How can not being a complete bigot be a gaffe.

/also 95% of the time the word gaffe is in a headline, my reaction is meh.

You must be a fellow Cracked reader.

spiderpaz: Lumpmoose: There's no way Obama is going to use the word "evolving" at a debate. What the fark is he waiting for?

We all know Obama for marriage equality (because he's not some kind of idiot hillbilly), as are most Americans. He should just do the right thing and stand up for civil rights and he will have nothing to regret. Nothing worse than being on the wrong side of history.

My guess is that he will during the campaign. I suspect this is why we're seeing Biden and Duncan jumped into the discussion - they're floating trial balloons.

Wow - that last sentence should be taken out back and shot. I apologize to all speakers of English.

lennavan: Because gay marriage is banned you farkwad. Read the farking sections I posted, specifically parts where only gays can get a civil union.

It's like you completely forgot the entire conversation up to the point where you decided to lose your shiat.

Smackledorfer: So ya, my point stands, and you clearly missed it by a mile if you think saying 'we should push for civil unions because its easier' has anything to do with my previous post.

Your entire description of your opinion is basically a repost of what I said upthread, yet since you still haven't read the thread you still have no farking idea what I've said so far. Fantastic.

Smackledorfer: But, if you want to discuss the civil union vs. marriage bit

That's the whole farking point you missed in not reading the earlier conversation, and the point that lennavan forgot. The discussion was in the context of overhauling the government interaction with 'marriage' to simply 'civil unions', and the various ways the names could be used to smooth passage for the primary goal: equal rights. Stomaching the 'civil union' pill for a while to bring out the bigots, for example. In context, those two terms are completely interchangable, because it was talking about approaches for the same endpoint of acknowledgement of equal rights. When you say "At the same time, we obviously won't get away with changing all legal unions to civil unions and getting rid of marriage", you aren't using either of those terms in the context of halfassed states-based rights, you're using it in context of two names for the same federally protected, fully equal set of rights that straight people enjoy.

Even in the cases where states recognize marriages between gay people, the federal government still does not for a myriad of benefits/protections. All the individual states could recognize marriage for gay people and it still wouldn't make them equal in the eyes of the law to straight people. In the vast majority of states that don't recognize gay marriage - under any of its names - they are treated as, like I said, nothing more than roommates. Their relationship has no legal status - particularly grating on a Federal level - and people are hurting because of it. Wisconsin throwing a pittance at gay people does not negate that need for equal rights. Not even close. States cannot grant full equality on their own, and most states haven't granted any equality. Yet I'm the one being disingenuous for saying DC isn't a state or that gay people are treated as second class citizens. Farking disgusting.

James!: If you count him stating his opinion as a gaffe.

Calling Romney "President Romney" and referring to Obama as "President Clinton" are the gaffes, tard.