What Civil Rights Afforded Married Couples Should Be Extended to "Alternate" Types of Couples Anyway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3DOCTORS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3DOCTORS

Guest
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now we have prominent Church members stating that though we mustn’t recognize homosexual unions or cohabitating couples as married, there might be ways of legally protecting their “civil rights.” Precisely what civil rights? To me, these folks should individually have the same civil rights as any single people, and no more.

Yes, partly because I’m a single celibate person and nobody’s going out of their way to see that I get special treatment. But really! Just because you shack up, suddenly you have a set of “rights” that did not exist before?! :eek:

I don’t buy it. :nope:
 
3DOCTORS said:
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now we have prominent Church members stating that though we mustn’t recognize homosexual unions or cohabitating couples as married, there might be ways of legally protecting their “civil rights.” Precisely what civil rights? To me, these folks should individually have the same civil rights as any single people, and no more.

Yes, partly because I’m a single celibate person and nobody’s going out of their way to see that I get special treatment. But really! Just because you shack up, suddenly you have a set of “rights” that did not exist before?! :eek:

I don’t buy it. :nope:
Click to expand...
In another thread you posted that you were concerned upon your death, that your family might not honor your wish for a Catholic liturgy and you might need a friend to do so, as I recall? Are you aware that most likely in your state, your family will have superior rights, if they choose to exercise them regarding your final disposition? You said you were unmarried with no children, wouldn’t it be nice if you could enter a non-sexual Civil Union and have someone of your choosing exercise control over you and your property, should you find yourself unable to do so, for example?
 
3DOCTORS said:
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now we have prominent Church members stating that though we mustn’t recognize homosexual unions or cohabitating couples as married, there might be ways of legally protecting their “civil rights.” Precisely what civil rights? To me, these folks should individually have the same civil rights as any single people, and no more.

Yes, partly because I’m a single celibate person and nobody’s going out of their way to see that I get special treatment. But really! Just because you shack up, suddenly you have a set of “rights” that did not exist before?! :eek:

I don’t buy it. :nope:
Click to expand...
I suppose people consider property rights and tax breaks and such to be civil rights.
Personally, I’m with you. Shouldn’t us single celibate people get tax breaks too? 👍
 
cwltexas said:
In another thread you posted that you were concerned upon your death, that your family might not honor your wish for a Catholic liturgy and you might need a friend to do so, as I recall? Are you aware that most likely in your state, your family will have superior rights, if they choose to exercise them regarding your final disposition? You said you were unmarried with no children, wouldn’t it be nice if you could enter a non-sexual Civil Union and have someone of your choosing exercise control over you and your property, should you find yourself unable to do so, for example?
Click to expand...
The assumption though is that Civil Unions have some sexual component. I rarely hear people calling for the ability to marry their brother or elderly grandmother. There are generally restrictions in Civil Union laws against unions of people already related.There ae also limits on number of people in the union.Isn’t it possibly in my best interest to be able to have multipl people that can handle my affairs? What if my primary isn’t available, shouldn’t I have the right to have an automatic fall back and therefore the ability to enter into multiparty unions (sexual or not)?

If it is simply a matter of control one can always draw up power of attorney. The only rights that can’t be satisfied through other legal means are generally tax related (filing status, survivor benefits) or inheritance related.
 
cwltexas said:
wouldn’t it be nice if you could enter a non-sexual Civil Union and have someone of your choosing exercise control over you and your property, should you find yourself unable to do so, for example?
Click to expand...
isn’t that what a will is for? and now you can pre-plan your own funeral.
 
People like to say that it was always about the adults but when you look at history, heirs (children) were very important. There were legal benefits to being the first born (first born was more of a legal term than actually meaning that person was born first, because sometimes the eldest was a daughter or the eldest son gave up his rights to a younger son). And kings would be upset if they didn’t have a male heir to rule after them. People did care about their children and what happened when they died.

And regarding marriage being about sex, people had affairs all the time, public or private. Christian or non-Christian. If marriage is about sex then why was it so acceptable to have mistresses, especially among the upper classes? Because marriage was about the children. The children born into marriage would get legal benefits, land, titles, etc. The wife was there to stay but mistresses came and went. Mistresses would get some benefit from the affair (gifts, money, something for their fathers), but their children did not get the benefits.
 
I have known many gay couples.

I would like them to have the rights of hospital visitation, power of attorney, second parent adoption, tax breaks, inheritance, among other things. Many of these people have children and the children should be protected.
 
Lisa1967 said:
I have known many gay couples.

I would like them to have the rights of hospital visitation, power of attorney, second parent adoption, tax breaks, inheritance, among other things. Many of these people have children and the children should be protected.
Click to expand...
Right, and I agree, mainly because of the children of gay couples. I work with 4 gay people, 3 of which are in long-term relationships and have children, either their own or through foster care.

A decade ago, gay rights groups were split among those who wanted civil unions (not under the name of marriage) that provided all of these civil rights, and those that wanted the same thing under the name of marriage. The second group stated that civil unions were not acceptable, even if they amounted to the same rights as marriage, since any ‘separate but equal’ laws would over time result in the same injustices that ‘separate but equal’ created for African Americans. Those that wanted civil unions didn’t want it called marriage because they knew it would make their legal battles (to obtain the right to marry) all that much harder. Even today there’s debate within the pro-gay camp over this (though the civil union crowd is quickly changing their mind).

I think question at the center of the whole gay marriage debate boils down to ‘is being gay bad’ vs ‘is being gay neutral or good’, and those on the pro-gay camp just want to end all vestiges of discrimination that gay people have faced for centuries.
 
Well, it seems to me that there also seems to be a push for more “rights” for straight cohabitating couples as far as this goes. I’m not singling out the gay couples here - the issues are more complex with them, true, but I’m talking about anyone who doesn’t want marriage, yet wants the “civil rights” pursuant thereto.

I am a straight woman. My economic status has been less than my girlfriends’ who have shacked up with guys. I accept this though I don’t like it. I accept celibacy, and most of the time lack of sexual pleasure is the least of my worries! 😛 Paying the bills has been, though.

Forgive the bitterness that may be in my tone; it’s hard to avoid and I apologize for it. 😦 What I am really concerned about, and the impetus for my starting this thread, is that **by force of numbers and wearing society down, the cohabitating straight couples and the gay couples are coming to the attention of higher-ups in the Church itself who are starting to believe the falsehood that these people have rights beyond what a celibate single person should have. **They are seen as having couple rights. Couple rights should be reserved for the legitimately married.

Two single people not legitimately married should each have their own rights as a single person, just as a single person living alone has. If they want to go to a lawyer and draw up some document, at their own expense, giving someone they call their “significant other” additional rights in their individual case, they are already allowed to do that.

If society wants to change tax laws and insurance and so forth to allow an unmarried person to designate one other person - a family member or a friend or a shack-up “partner” - then it should also allow a single person such as myself to designate another person in that regard.

When my mother was alive and whispers of “gay marriage” began to grow louder, and there was a house that I could’ve inherited if I were her legal “spouse” - it occurred to me that if the law let me, I could have “married” her and not lost the house. :rolleyes: (My late father and my mother did not get the chance to make a will in time for reasons that are complicated.)
 
3DOCTORS said:
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now we have prominent Church members stating that though we mustn’t recognize homosexual unions or cohabitating couples as married, there might be ways of legally protecting their “civil rights.” Precisely what civil rights? To me, these folks should individually have the same civil rights as any single people, and no more.

Yes, partly because I’m a single celibate person and nobody’s going out of their way to see that I get special treatment. But really! Just because you shack up, suddenly you have a set of “rights” that did not exist before?! :eek:

I don’t buy it. :nope:
Click to expand...
Any faux union is wrong. So called rights can be protected by drawing up papers. Anything that mimics marriage, not only by name, helps to desensitize people to the basic unit of civilization.
 
fix said:
Any faux union is wrong. So called rights can be protected by drawing up papers. Anything that mimics marriage, not only by name, helps to desensitize people to the basic unit of civilization.
Click to expand...
You could not be more wrong, ANY JUDGE WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION can overrule ANY PAPER that you draw up and we have seen this happen time after time after time. Especially when you have crying family members who have been left out complaining, Judge Bubba, at least where I live, often will and does find in their favor, CONTRARY to what the person involved put IN WRITING that they wanted. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
 
cwltexas said:
You could not be more wrong, ANY JUDGE WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION can overrule ANY PAPER that you draw up and we have seen this happen time after time after time. Especially when you have crying family members who have been left out complaining, Judge Bubba, at least where I live, often will and does find in their favor, CONTRARY to what the person involved put IN WRITING that they wanted. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
Click to expand...
Contracts are upheld all the time. Any faux union can is no guarantee. A judge has broad power and can set aside things plenty times.
 
fix said:
Contracts are upheld all the time. Any faux union can is no guarantee. A judge has broad power and can set aside things plenty times.
Click to expand...
You do realize that you are providing a reasonable and logical argument that supports the proponents of full same sex marriage, right?
 
cwltexas said:
You do realize that you are providing a reasonable and logical argument that supports the proponents of full same sex marriage, right?
Click to expand...
How? They are not needed to secure benefits. It is simply a ploy to gain legitimacy.
 
fix said:
How? They are not needed to secure benefits. It is simply a ploy to gain legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Full, same sex marriage proponents have and continue to maintain that Civil Unions are incomplete, no national recognition and do not convey the 1300+ rights of marriage that full marriage does.

You are very mistaken, SOME legal institution / framework is most definitely needed, that is mandated to be recognized nationwide, that provides and secures those benefits. We see in New Jersey that without such, not only governments but private companies WILL NOT make them available.
 
cwltexas said:
Full, same sex marriage proponents have and continue to maintain that Civil Unions are incomplete, no national recognition and do not convey the 1300+ rights of marriage that full marriage does.

You are very mistaken, SOME legal institution / framework is most definitely needed, that is mandated to be recognized nationwide, that provides and secures those benefits. We see in New Jersey that without such, not only governments but private companies WILL NOT make them available.
Click to expand...
You are very mistaken. These faux unions hurt society.
 
Lisa1967 said:
I have known many gay couples.

I would like them to have the rights of hospital visitation, power of attorney, second parent adoption, tax breaks, inheritance, among other things. Many of these people have children and the children should be protected.
Click to expand...
any lawyer could draft the documents that would get about 90% of what a civil marriage gives by default.

F/
 
Fairwinds said:
any lawyer could draft the documents that would get about 90% of what a civil marriage gives by default.F/
Click to expand...
At a cost of right around $1800 as compared to $50 for a Civil Union license, hardly comparable in the least and 90% is way excessive, not even close, maybe 50% or less and NOT RECOGNIZED NATIONWIDE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top