NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier today Governor John Lynch signed a bill, passed by the Legislature in late April, into law. This new law legalizes same sex civil unions in the state of New Hampshire. While these civil unions will offer privilidges, responsibilities, and benefits at a state level effectively identical to married heterosexual couples, they will not be refered to, legally, as marriages.

Source (http://www.towleroad.com/2007/05/new_hampshire_g.html)

New Hampshire joins Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey as other states that also offer same sex civil unions that are effectively identical in all but name to heterosexual marriages. California has a system that grants nearly all, but not all of the rights of marriage.

Maine, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and the District of Columbia and have created same sex domestic partnerships that offer some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, to various degrees

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the first and only state in America that offers same sex marriages, identical both in law and in name to heterosexual marriages.

Good news.

Good for New Hampshire.

Now, for most of the rest of the country....

A good compromise, let them civil-unionize, if that's the verb.

Regardless my social views, I'm always concerned with liberty of contract. Marriage is foremost a contract, after all.

Even if "civil" it's a progressive move and a stepforward for human rights.

Careful...this might be catching :D

*wishes for an epidemic*

oh, good for the gays

Some history for those interested. Ignoring the various domestic partnership bills, the general history of same sex civil unions/marriages is as follows:

- in 2000, in Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage benefits to same sex couples was in violation of Vermont's constitution. The court required the legilsature to pass legislation granting same sex couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples, but gave the state the option of calling this system "marriages" or "civil unions". The legislture complied, calling this legal recognition "civil unions", differentiating them from marriages, which remain in vermont a heterosexual only institution

- in 2004, following Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled similarly as the Vermont court did in Baker, however, unlike in Baker, the Mass Supreme Court said that not only was denying benefits a violation of the MA constitution, but that the state was constitutionally required to refer to such unions as marriage, legally, and technically indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage. The court in Goodridge found that even refering to legally identical institutions as "civil unions" while refering to marriage as a heterosexual only institution would be unconstitutionally discriminating.

- in 2005 The Connecticut Legislature passed laws creating same sex civil unions, while at the same time, much like Vermont, keeping marriage as a heterosexual only institution. Connecticut was the first state to offer legal rights to same sex couples identical to marriage without the intervention of the courts.

- in 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Lewis v. Harris ruled very similar to the way the Vermont Supreme Court did in Baker, saying that denying marriage benefits was unconstitutional under the New Jersey Constitution. Like in Baker, the court did not go as far as MA did in Goodridge and allowed the legislature to decide whether to refer to such systems as civil unions or marriages. The New Jersey Legislature decided to call them civl unions.

- in 2007 the State of New Hampshire passed laws creating civil unions, effectively identical to heterosexual marriages, but declided to refer to them as marriages. New Hamsphire is the second state to create civil unions without a court requiring such, following Connecticut.. This legislation follows two failed attempts by conservative elements in New Hampshire to amend the New Hampshire constititution to ban same sex marriages.

Some history for those interested. Ignoring the various domestic partnership bills, the general history of same sex civil unions/marriages is as follows:

- in 2000, in Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage benefits to same sex couples was in violation of Vermont's constitution. The court required the legilsature to pass legislation granting same sex couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples, but gave the state the option of calling this system "marriages" or "civil unions". The legislture complied, calling this legal recognition "civil unions", differentiating them from marriages, which remain in vermont a heterosexual only institution

- in 2004, following Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled similarly as the Vermont court did in Baker, however, unlike in Baker, the Mass Supreme Court said that not only was denying benefits a violation of the MA constitution, but that the state was constitutionally required to refer to such unions as marriage, legally, and technically indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage. The court in Goodridge found that even refering to legally identical institutions as "civil unions" while refering to marriage as a heterosexual only institution would be unconstitutionally discriminating.

- in 2005 The Connecticut Legislature passed laws creating same sex civil unions, while at the same time, much like Vermont, keeping marriage as a heterosexual only institution. Connecticut was the first state to offer legal rights to same sex couples identical to marriage without the intervention of the courts.

- in 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Lewis v. Harris ruled very similar to the way the Vermont Supreme Court did in Baker, saying that denying marriage benefits was unconstitutional under the New Jersey Constitution. Like in Baker, the court did not go as far as MA did in Goodridge and allowed the legislature to decide whether to refer to such systems as civil unions or marriages. The New Jersey Legislature decided to call them civl unions.

- in 2007 the State of New Hampshire passed laws creating civil unions, effectively identical to heterosexual marriages, but declided to refer to them as marriages. New Hamsphire is the second state to create civil unions without a court requiring such, following Connecticut.. This legislation follows two failed attempts by conservative elements in New Hampshire to amend the New Hampshire constititution to ban same sex marriages.

Interesting stuff; however, Lochner v. New York is precedent enough for me. :)

What...no one wants to bemoan the 'moral decrepitude of a nation that gives fags the same rights as humans'?

What...no one wants to bemoan the 'moral decrepitude of a nation that gives fags the same rights as humans'?

They're not giving them the same rights. They're segregating, and patting themselves on the back for it, too.

More people getting married is a good thing.

More people getting married is a good thing.

You're unreasonably prejudiced on the issue:D

And I'm still missing pictures...

What...no one wants to bemoan the 'moral decrepitude of a nation that gives fags the same rights as humans'?

Oh, wait for it - I'm sure we'll hear the scraping of knuckles across the floor any minute now.

They're not giving them the same rights. They're segregating, and patting themselves on the back for it, too.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

But still way worse than what should be. It shouldn't even be a question, just an auto yes.

You're unreasonably prejudiced on the issue:D

And I'm still missing pictures...

You have a TG. No pictures - yet, but you do get a TG in the meanwhile.

Oh, wait for it - I'm sure we'll hear the scraping of knuckles across the floor any minute now.

And yet, isn't it bizarre that EVERY SINGLE TIME, I am shocked that anyone could possibly oppose this? I just don't get it.

Interesting stuff; however, Lochner v. New York is precedent enough for me. :)

considering Lochner has been considered for decades what courts should NOT do, I wouldn't suggest that outlook.

Moreover, [the theory behind Lochner was that the government should not interefere in private contracts made purely between private entities. This is entirely irrelevant to marriage, since the government IS involved in the marriage contract ALREADY. The government gives benefits to married couples, as such, the idea behind Lochner, which is to say it is unconstitutional to interfere in private contracts, is moot, as it is not a private contract by itself, but rather a state action.

Lochner is absolutly irrelevant to the issue, or it would be, if it was even still good law, which it isn't.

considering Lochner has been considered for decades what courts should NOT do, I wouldn't suggest that outlook.

Moreover, [the theory behind Lochner was that the government should not interefere in private contracts made purely between private entities. This is entirely irrelevant to marriage, since the government IS involved in the marriage contract ALREADY. The government gives benefits to married couples, as such, the idea behind Lochner, which is to say it is unconstitutional to interfere in private contracts, is moot, as it is not a private contract by itself, but rather a state action.

Lochner is absolutly irrelevant to the issue, or it would be, if it was even still good law, which it isn't.

I realise not everyone considers it good law, and that it's controversial. But it's still (marriage) a liberty of contract issue, since it functions as a contract.

You have a TG. No pictures - yet, but you do get a TG in the meanwhile.

So just what exactly is a TG?

So just what exactly is a TG?

Telegram.

So just what exactly is a TG?

A telegram. Don't worry, I've never gotten one either. :p

I feel more than a little stupid now. Thank you for your help.

I realise not everyone considers it good law,

No, NOBODY considers Lochner good law. It's not, at all.

and that it's controversial.

No, it WAS controversial. Now it's dead, as dead as Plessy, and Dred Scott.

But it's still (marriage) a liberty of contract issue, since it functions as a contract.

except that marriage is not considered merely a contract between parties, but rather a state actions. As such Loving v. Virginia is far more relevant. Or, if you insist on going the "marriage is a contract" route, then since marriage licenses are issued by the state, there is a state action involved in the license, and Shelly v. Kraemer is on point.

hopefully this holds up. This is a good thing.

They're not giving them the same rights. They're segregating, and patting themselves on the back for it, too.

It's not entirely the same, as in this case everything is identical apart from the name, whereas segregation in America's past has usually been a more equal and less equal type of thing.

Now, admittedly, I'd be all for one of two things:

1. Either call them all marriages
2. Or take the word marriage out of laws altogether and refer to all marriages as civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. This is my personally preferred option as marriage these days carries a religious overtone I would like to see removed.

But, this is a step in the right direction. Believe me, Fass, we heterosexuals in America who accept homosexuals as human beings with all equal rights are working as hard as we can. We're making progress, so do not bemoan it.

They're not giving them the same rights. They're segregating, and patting themselves on the back for it, too.


Allowing same gender marriage is the ONLY reason I'm proud to live in MA.

Civil Unions are nice and all, but they aren't marriages. Other states don't have to recognize a "civil union" However...every same sex couple married in MA must be recognized as a married couple in every state.

Interesting sidenote, the couple that brought the issue to court is now seeking divorce in RI, and no one knows how to deal with it. RI wants them to go to MA for a divorce, MA says it's RI's problem now...kind of funny to watch it play out in the press.

No, NOBODY considers Lochner good law. It's not, at all.



No, it WAS controversial. Now it's dead, as dead as Plessy, and Dred Scott.



except that marriage is not considered merely a contract between parties, but rather a state actions. As such Loving v. Virginia is far more relevant. Or, if you insist on going the "marriage is a contract" route, then since marriage licenses are issued by the state, there is a state action involved in the license, and Shelly v. Kraemer is on point.

Some people still consider Lochner good law, even if it's a minority. Naturally, I was advocating a return to more Lochner-esque rulings, not advocating that Lochner *be used* in argument. Slight difference. :p I'm not disagreeing that citing Lochner before any Court won't get you far. It won't, of course. ;)

+1 for the secular, sane side :)

This is still bigotry, just more subtle about it. It's a way of saying 'civil unions are for gays, but marriage is for a man and a women', it's still intolerance.

Some people still consider Lochner good law, even if it's a minority. Naturally, I was advocating a return to more Lochner-esque rulings, not advocating that Lochner *be used* in argument. Slight difference. :p I'm not disagreeing that citing Lochner before any Court won't get you far. It won't, of course. ;)

the problem is when you use the expression "good law". The expression "good law" means that the law is still considered valid by the courts. No court in this nation, as you admit, would consider Lochner valid precident. It isn't.

"good law" is a technical term. It's not an opinion question, it is a fact question. "Is this case good law" is the same as asking "does this case has precedential value". It's either yes, or no. Lochner has been overturned, numerous times in the last 100 years. As such, it has no precedential value. It is not good law.

Now, you are of course free to argue wwhether or not it SHOULD be good law. But regardless of what you think about whether it SHOULD be, as a fact, it's no more good law than Plessy, Dred Scott, or Bowers v. Hardwick

This is still bigotry, just more subtle about it. It's a way of saying 'civil unions are for gays, but marriage is for a man and a women', it's still intolerance.

it's a step in the right direction, where they had nothing, now they have something, it gives them leverage.

It's not entirely the same, as in this case everything is identical apart from the name, whereas segregation in America's past has usually been a more equal and less equal type of thing.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

But, this is a step in the right direction. Believe me, Fass, we heterosexuals in America who accept homosexuals as human beings with all equal rights are working as hard as we can. We're making progress, so do not bemoan it.

I'm sorry, but I can't be enthusiastic about this. Civil unions/partnerships are so 80s/early 90s. This country is just about to replace the flawed and inherently unequal "partnerships" no one is happy with, with proper marriage and you lot are like two decades behind, at least. I cannot praise an outmoded and unequal anachronism.

it's a step in the right direction, where they had nothing, now they have something, it gives them leverage.

I grew up in NH, and to be honest, this surprised me. NH has always been a fairly conservative leaning state, with pockets of liberals. So, for New Hampshire, this is a huge step in the right direction.

the problem is when you use the expression "good law". The expression "good law" means that the law is still considered valid by the courts. No court in this nation, as you admit, would consider Lochner valid precident. It isn't.

"good law" is a technical term. It's not an opinion question, it is a fact question. "Is this case good law" is the same as asking "does this case has precedential value". It's either yes, or no. Lochner has been overturned, numerous times in the last 100 years. As such, it has no precedential value. It is not good law.

Now, you are of course free to argue wwhether or not it SHOULD be good law. But regardless of what you think about whether it SHOULD be, as a fact, it's no more good law than Plessy, Dred Scott, or Bowers v. Hardwick

That's a distinction without a difference. But I agree that there's no need to split hairs. The spirit is alive, even if it hasn't been translated back into precedent yet. But we'll get there. :) Plessy and Dred Scott are dead because racial segregation and slavery are dead. Lochner lives on in spirit because Freedom is still alive. ;)

the fact that NH also decided, independantly, to pass this legislation, mucht like CT, gives a lot more legitimacy to this, as with VT, MA, and NJ you had a lot of hand wrangling and screaming about "judicial activisim" and how the courts reached an obviously wrong decision, despite the fact that many of the people arguing such had never read the constitutions of VT, MA, and NJ.

No court decision to challenge, no constitutional interpretation to argue. Just the democratically elected legislature legislating as they decide to. The fact that NH passed this law without a court requirement leaves all the opponents with basically nothing more than "it's still wrong", which basically leaves them arguing against democracy.

A bad position for them to be in, because one of the criticisms they've raised against VT, MA, and NJ is that this law came about through court decisions and not listening to "the will of the people".

A step in the right direction. Same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide eventually. I just hope I live to see it. Why should this be an issue anyway? If I want to get married, it has nothing to do with anyone else. All these people yelling about it can butt out and mind their own business.

Lochner lives on in spirit because Freedom is still alive.

The "freedom" to ignore the health and safety of workers.

That's a distinction without a difference.

No, that's a HUGE distinction. "good law" in spirit and good law in fact are as important as the distinction between de jure and de facto.

The spirit is alive, even if it hasn't been translated back into precedent yet. But we'll get there. :) Plessy and Dred Scott are dead because racial segregation and slavery are dead. Lochner lives on in spirit because Freedom is still alive. ;)

the spirit of Lochner is that people can contract however they want without any restrictions. This is...silly. Now the general proposition of freedom to act without undue government restriction is entirely different than what lochner stood for, the freedom to contract without any government restriction.

The former is admirable. The later is ascinine.

The "freedom" to ignore the health and safety of workers.

the 'freedom' to return the world (or a part of it) into a 1909 state of affairs.

you lot are like two decades behind, at least. I cannot praise an outmoded and unequal anachronism.

hey, us bostonians are, in fact, ahead of you swedes and have been since '04.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Truly equal? Perhaps not. However it is difficult to argue that black children in black only schools are not still better off than black children who are not allowed to go to school at all. It may not be perfect, but it's better. Social progress through the lenses of history appear to be giant leaps, yet when looked at from a day to day progression, turn out to be a series of tiny steps.

hey, us bostonians are, in fact, ahead of you swedes

What, international Time Zones? Hunh?

hey, us bostonians are, in fact, ahead of you swedes and have been since '04.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

What, international Time Zones? Hunh?

MA has legal gay marriage. Not civil unions, but actual marriage. it's the only state in America to do so, and has had such since Goodridge was decided in 2004.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

Hopefully, with Mitt out of office, that won't go too far.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

as a whole, no, we're not. The process requires two consecutive votes, and then a general population vote. Only the first vote was passed, and it was passed due to the vote of legislatures who voted so that the amendment could be put to ballot, and fail, thus settling this issue all together.

Sure there is some opposition, but the majority is in favor. Every area will have some opposition, which is nothing at all to be surprised of.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

Ouch!

*sits on the sidelines munching popcorn, in another fine country that allows gay marriage*

Good for N.H.! :)

Ouch!

*sits on the sidelines munching popcorn, in another fine country that allows gay marriage*

We tend to reform things into place. This reform has taken time because of the intervening separation of church and state, leaving the residual marriage issues a mess. In a country with a more than 1000 year old legal tradition, it isn't as easy to change things, but for some reason we tend to tug along faster than most, and we don't even have "judicial activism" as a choice in our system... anyhoo, "civil unions" are seen as a thing of the past. Not much to tout.

It's not entirely the same, as in this case everything is identical apart from the name, whereas segregation in America's past has usually been a more equal and less equal type of thing.

Everything on the state level (in a single state) is essentially identical. However, because marriages are also recognized by federal law, covered by international treaties and/or policies, and recognized by other states, there isn't a single place in the entire US - even Mass - where they are truly the same.

It's progress, but to pretend that same-sex marriages anywhere in this country are equally protected under the law is simply wrong.


Civil Unions are nice and all, but they aren't marriages. Other states don't have to recognize a "civil union" However...every same sex couple married in MA must be recognized as a married couple in every state.

Currently, this is incorrect because of DOMA. Now, when DOMA eventually has a challenge that the US Supreme Court can't sidestep on a technical issue, I fully expect it to be declared unconstitutional. But states cannot currently be required to recognize same-sex marriages from Mass. And Mass. law currently keeps any out-of-state same-sex couples from getting married there anyways, so the challenge will have to come from a couple that gets married and then moves to another state.

Interesting sidenote, the couple that brought the issue to court is now seeking divorce in RI, and no one knows how to deal with it. RI wants them to go to MA for a divorce, MA says it's RI's problem now...kind of funny to watch it play out in the press.

And this is the shit that happens when you allow some states to refuse equal protection under the law....

We tend to reform things into place. This reform has taken time because of the intervening separation of church and state, leaving the residual marriage issues a mess. In a country with a more than 1000 year old legal tradition, it isn't as easy to change things, but for some reason we tend to tug along faster than most, and we don't even have "judicial activism" as a choice in our system... anyhoo, "civil unions" are seen as a thing of the past. Not much to tout.

How is the legal and governmental system of Sweden set up. You guys are a constitutional monarchy, yes?

How is the legal and governmental system of Sweden set up. You guys are a constitutional monarchy, yes?

Well, a relatively simple answer is: We are a constitutional monarchy, but since the monarch has no political power and actually no politically functional role, you can ignore the monarchy completely as it is inconsequential to government, legislation, courts... well, anything at all, really.

So, we have a constitution. It contains four "fundamental laws": The Instrument of Government, The Act of Succession, The Freedom of the Press Act and The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. The Instrument of Government is the central one that defines the Realm (Sweden is officially a Royal Realm), defines rights of citizens, defines the tasks of parliament (the "Riksdag") and the government ("Regeringen"), defines the system of courts and so on.

The unicameral Riksdag is the foremost representative of the people. It enacts the laws, determines State taxes and decides how State funds shall be employed. The Riksdag examines the government and administration of the Realm. It is elected every four years through a proportional election system (with a bar of 4%) and is strictly parliamentarian. That means that the Government cannot govern without its consent.

The government itself is formed when the speaker of the Riksdag asks one of the party leaders in the Riksdag (seven parties are currently represented in it) to form a government, which nowadays tends to be either a minority government made up of representatives of a single party that enjoys "support" from other parties in the Riksdag (usually a Social Democrat - Leftist - Green grouping), or a coalition government made up of several different parties (such is the case currently with a centre-right government). Once the government is formed, it is approved by the Riksdag. The Government has executive powers and proposes legislation in the Riksdag, but as mentioned previously is subordinate to it and there is no such thing as a "veto" - one can say that the Riksdag rules supreme.

The Riksdag itself has several committees, the most important one being the Comittee on the Constitution which makes sure that all acts of government are in line with the Constitution. As part of the Riksdag's "surveillance" role over the government, it holds regular interrogations of ministers where they have to respond to questions posed by parliamentarians. The Riksdag can declare a vote of no confidence against single ministers or the Government as a whole, forcing their resignation.

The legal system is a civil law system, where the court system can be described as two-fold. One for criminal and civil matters, and another for administrative matters. Both parts are divided into three levels, with the lowest being under appellate jurisdiction to the middle one, and the middle one being under appellate jurisdiction to either of the two supreme courts: "Högsta Domstolen" (lit. "Highest Court") for civil and criminal matters, and "Regeringsrätten" (lit. "Government Court") for administrative matters. There are a few courts that do not fall neatly into this scheme, but let's not go into that. The Supreme Courts tend only to hear cases that can be deemed to be guiding/precedent-forming, but they cannot declare laws themselves unconstitutional.

That role is shared between the Comittee on the Constitution and a system of Ombudsmen, a "Lagråd" (a legal council) and a chancellor of Justice that tend not to let unconstitutional laws be passed in the first place, but if one manages to slip through, the Court system simply ignores it and judges in line with the constitution. To the entire national court system can of course be added the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice whose rulings in their jurisdictions always weigh highest.

Then there are elected county and municipal councils and blah blah blah. I'm tired of writing now.

So your Supreme Court is relatively less powerful than SCOTUS, and it looks like you don't have an executive branch (unless I'm reading it wrong).

Are your parliamentary members directly elected representatives? And is there a PM?

Progress marches on.

So your Supreme Court is relatively less powerful than SCOTUS, and it looks like you don't have an executive branch (unless I'm reading it wrong).

The Supreme Court is far less powerful than "SCOTUS", as it is not a constitutional court at all. As I said, those duties lies elsewhere.
We do have an executive branch, though - it's the government. It is not equal to the Riksdag, though, as I said, because it is dependant on its approval for action, because it is installed by it and because every law that the government submits has to be passed by it. If the government fails to gets its laws passed, it must resign as it automatically lacks the confidence of the Riksdag. This happens almost never, because the Government almost always retains the support of the parties that voted for its installation throughout the 4-year mandate.

Are your parliamentary members directly elected representatives?

Define "directly". They cannot run on their own, and have to run under the banner of a political party, but they can be "ticked" individually as a preference among that party's voters on election day and if they reach a certain threshold of votes, they will get elected ahead of the "list" of that party, which its members have voted on beforehand.

And is there a PM?

Yes, that is the person asked by the Speaker of Parliament to form a government. It is usually the leader of the biggest party in a coalition, or if a party has majority on its own (this happens very rarely and hasn't for a very long time) in the Riksdag, then of course its leader. You have to remember that the Riksdag installs the government, and thus whoever wants to form a government has to have support from a majority of the MPs, which tend to vote along party lines (there are a whips that "force" them to adhere to the platform of their party, as they were elected on the party's platform).

Fass, mon petit chou-fleur, voulez-vous converser?

The "freedom" to ignore the health and safety of workers.

That's silly. Liberty of contract doesn't mean liberty to ignore laws, or freedom from liability if someone is hurt on your jobsite. :p

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

The Constitutional Marriage Amendment was DOA when the Republicans ran Congress. It's more than dead now with the Democrats in charge--even if it were offered, it wouldn't make the floor for a vote.

You're smart, Fass, but you don't know everything about this country.

You're smart, Fass, but you don't know everything about this country.

Not even you yanks do :P

The Constitutional Marriage Amendment was DOA when the Republicans ran Congress. It's more than dead now with the Democrats in charge--even if it were offered, it wouldn't make the floor for a vote.

You're smart, Fass, but you don't know everything about this country.

Apparently neither do you, as I was speaking about an amendment to the constitution of Massachusetts and not the federal constitution. So, before you try to tell me what I do and do not know about your country, perhaps you should yourself get apprised of the situation therein, hmm?

Currently, this is incorrect because of DOMA. Now, when DOMA eventually has a challenge that the US Supreme Court can't sidestep on a technical issue, I fully expect it to be declared unconstitutional. But states cannot currently be required to recognize same-sex marriages from Mass. And Mass. law currently keeps any out-of-state same-sex couples from getting married there anyways, so the challenge will have to come from a couple that gets married and then moves to another state.
Given the ability of the current court to twist itself into rhetorical pretzels this term, I wouldn't bet on DOMA being overturned when a solid challenge eventually reaches it, simply because Kennedy will be the swing vote on it, and while he wrote the decision in Lawrence v Texas, I wouldn't exactly call him reliable. Even though Scalia said in his Lawrence dissent that the next logical step was legalization of same sex marriage, don't count on him to vote for it.

That's silly. Liberty of contract doesn't mean liberty to ignore laws, or freedom from liability if someone is hurt on your jobsite. :p

ummmm....

you DO know what Lochner was about right? I don't mean general concept such as "liberty of contract", do you know what the specific law in question was about?

Not even you yanks do :P

Isn't that the truth.

Fass, mon petit chou-fleur, voulez-vous converser?

Merde, j'aurais du me coucher il y a des heures, et tu m'aides pas! Mais, si tu veux, et que je sois bête, ouiais....

ummmm....

you DO know what Lochner was about right? I don't mean general concept such as "liberty of contract", do you know what the specific law in question was about?

Yes, it overturned a law - hours of service restrictions on a bakery employee - which happened to be unjust. Ideally, that wouldn't be necessary, and extant law would incorporate wide contractual rights. There's a lot of progress yet to be made. :)

+1 for the secular, sane side :)

Nice generalizing.
I am religous, evangelical protestant Baptist.
and i am still disappointed in this decision.

It is the same old "Equal but Seperate" bullshit.

I was sold on it once, but realized it was indeed bullshit.

If it is offered by the state, and the state recognizes homosexuality as being legitamite. Then under the seperation of church and state what reason is there for not allowing smae sex MARRIAGES? A marriage because it is indeed a state action is not religious...one can have a purely religious wedding wihtout state sanction...it wont be legal...but you could call yourself married.

But if you can be legally married to another person, and all manner of discrimnation against homosexuals is unfair, and illegal(hate crime laws, EEO, and the like...then Marriage falls under that category.

This isnt a good thing...its a set back. People asked for Champne and they got Cooks sparkiling wine...it will get you a buzz but it leaves a shitty taste in your mouth.

I am tired and angry...irratated actually is more correct...and i cant find my words.

But I must agree with Fass completely, this isnt good.
Its a distraction, and cookie to shut up the yapping dog...people should be pissed, and insulted. This isnt far from Gay Water fountains and Gay Pools, and blah blah blah.

Merde, j'aurais du me coucher il y a des heures, et tu m'aides pas! Mais, si tu veux, et que je sois bête, ouiais....

Mille pardons, et million de mercis!

Yes, it overturned a law - hours of service restrictions on a bakery employee - which happened to be unjust.

So, like I said:

"The 'freedom' to ignore the health and safety of workers."

So, like I said:

"The 'freedom' to ignore the health and safety of workers."

Except the employee *wanted* to work the number of hours requested. Hence, freedom is at stake. I don't particularly want the government telling me that I can only work X hours per week, when I know myself to be capable and willing to work 'X+1.' I'm not advocating the abolition of OSHA, remember. ;)

Except the employee *wanted* to work the number of hours requested.

Yes, in the same sense that workers "want" to work for below minimum wage.

That is to say, their employers (if they are not restricted by law) only employ them on terms that involve such conditions.

That's why the owner was charged, not the employee.

I don't particularly want the government telling me that I can only work X hours per week, when I know myself to be capable and willing to work 'X+1.'

You are not the only person who exists. And the concern in the Lochner case was health more than overwork.

I'm not advocating the abolition of OSHA, remember. ;)

If you really believed in the absolute right of contract, you would.

After all, why should the government prohibit you from working at a workplace that doesn't meet health and safety standards? Maybe that's your life's desire....

Yes, it overturned a law - hours of service restrictions on a bakery employee - which happened to be unjust. Ideally, that wouldn't be necessary, and extant law would incorporate wide contractual rights. There's a lot of progress yet to be made. :)

yeah, progress away from outmoded and frankly destructive ideas that would allow air traffic controllers and bus drivers to be forced to work excessive hours. Christ you're as bad as Llewdor.

Nice generalizing.
I am religous, evangelical protestant Baptist.
and i am still disappointed in this decision.

It is the same old "Equal but Seperate" bullshit.

I was sold on it once, but realized it was indeed bullshit.

If it is offered by the state, and the state recognizes homosexuality as being legitamite. Then under the seperation of church and state what reason is there for not allowing smae sex MARRIAGES? A marriage because it is indeed a state action is not religious...one can have a purely religious wedding wihtout state sanction...it wont be legal...but you could call yourself married.

But if you can be legally married to another person, and all manner of discrimnation against homosexuals is unfair, and illegal(hate crime laws, EEO, and the like...then Marriage falls under that category.

This isnt a good thing...its a set back. People asked for Champne and they got Cooks sparkiling wine...it will get you a buzz but it leaves a shitty taste in your mouth.

I am tired and angry...irratated actually is more correct...and i cant find my words.

But I must agree with Fass completely, this isnt good.
Its a distraction, and cookie to shut up the yapping dog...people should be pissed, and insulted. This isnt far from Gay Water fountains and Gay Pools, and blah blah blah.

Here's the thing--the yapping dog isn't going to be satisfied with a cookie, and the legislatures of the various states know it in their souls. They may think they can satisfy them with this, but deep down, they know that full same sex marriage is coming sooner rather than later. Yes, it would be nice if New Hampshire had gone the full marriage route, but this is an improvement over no recognition at all. There's still along way to go, and this is a small step in the right direction.

Less than ten years ago, the gay panic defense was acceptable in courts of law in gay bashing murder trials. Thirty years ago, a guy basically walked on a double murder charge in San Francisco of all places using the Twinkie defense because gays weren't considered full humans--that doesn't happen very often any more, especially in more urban areas. So the situation is improving--not as fast as I would like, to be sure. I want to go to my gay friends' weddings--the parties will be killer. But they are improving, and the demographics are in gay's favor--younger people support full marriage rights by a 60-40 majority, and that number will only get bigger as civil unions become more ubiquitous and as more people see that the world isn't ending in Massachusetts because of same sex marriage.

Careful...this might be catching :D

*wishes for an epidemic*

Wow...something we actually agree on. I really don't care if gays get married, if they want to get married, eh let them, I mean it's not hurting any heterosexual relationship that I may have in the future, and it sure as hell won't hurt my marriage to a woman (if I ever get married) so why not support gay marriage?

yeah, progress away from outmoded and frankly destructive ideas that would allow air traffic controllers and bus drivers to be forced to work excessive hours. Christ you're as bad as Llewdor.

I also believe in the 'necessary and proper' clause, and the government's obligation to provide for the general good. Of course that's going to mean not allowing air-traffic controllers (and the like - people in perilous occupations) to be pushed to an unhealthy extreme. It's not always easy to determine *how much* freedom we should have, but I say we give the benefit of the doubt to the worker, and try always to allow maximum freedom. To paraphrase JFK - to pursue it *not because it's easy, but because it's hard.* :)

Except the employee *wanted* to work the number of hours requested. Hence, freedom is at stake. I don't particularly want the government telling me that I can only work X hours per week, when I know myself to be capable and willing to work 'X+1.' I'm not advocating the abolition of OSHA, remember. ;)

I have a CDL-A with a tanker endorsement.

I can hual hazardous waste, gasoline, or chlorine.

Now the Government says I must be stopped every 11 hours for an 8 hour off duty, not working. i must recieve 8 hours of off duty time every 11 hours.

Now I "want" to drive all night to get where i am going. SO I can feck my wife and play ball with my kids.

Do you "want" me to pass out after 20 hours of driving and kill you and your loved ones?

I have a CDL-A with a tanker endorsement.

I can hual hazardous waste, gasoline, or chlorine.

Now the Government says I must be stopped every 11 hours for an 8 hour off duty, not working. i must recieve 8 hours of off duty time every 11 hours.

Now I "want" to drive all night to get where i am going.

Do you "want" me to pass out after 20 hours of driving and kill you and your loved ones?

No, you have a perilous occupation. You already needed a background check and so forth just to qualify, and probably have to keep clear of major arteries through cities, etc. The public welfare *and* individual freedom need to be weighed and judged always. But our general philosophy should be one of freedom over restriction.

Of course that's going to mean not allowing air-traffic controllers (and the like - people in perilous occupations) to be pushed to an unhealthy extreme.

You mean like the people who work with very large ovens while making your food?

I say we give the benefit of the doubt to the worker

I agree, but we do not have self-managed bakeries.

The practical consequence of removing regulations like the one invalidated in Lochner is allowing employers to make their workers endure unhealthy conditions for long hours, to the detriment of the public welfare and individual freedom.

But our general philosophy should be one of freedom over restriction.

Oh, sure, as a GENERAL sense yes, freedom should only be restricted when necessary.

Ensuring that people who are handling food that goes out to public consumption doesn't pitch face first into what is essentially a furnace after a 14 hour day is one of those situations where it's necessary.

You mean like the people who work with very large ovens while making your food?

Considerably less perilous. I've been a baker myself, and worked 16-hour days to that effect. Not analogous to air-traffic control. No one dies if you fail. Bread gets chewy, or breaks, or is too thick, but no one dies. :)

It's not always easy to determine *how much* freedom we should have, but I say we give the benefit of the doubt to the worker, and try always to allow maximum freedom. To paraphrase JFK - to pursue it *not because it's easy, but because it's hard.* :)

No, hualing none of those things do I have to avoid any roads that any other semi is allowed to use. I can roll down a street lined with houses or right past a school, and I have.

and you clearly state leave it up to the worker.

I say I am capable of driving 20 hours a stretch...dont you trust me, "Give the benfit of the doubt to the worker" right...not safety...but the guy who gets paid to drive, or roast in a fecking kitchen.

Because we have our safety in mind...and yours..honest.
So as you said give me the benfit of the doubt...right?

I also believe in the 'necessary and proper' clause

which is applicable to the federal government, not the states'

Considerably less perilous. I've been a baker myself

in 1906?

Oh, sure, as a GENERAL sense yes, freedom should only be restricted when necessary.

Sounds stupefyingly simple, I know. But you'd be surprised of the number of Communists/Socialists/authoritarians around here who would in a trice reject freedoms that basic. Freedom can be a hard sell to some.

No, hualing none of those things do I have to avoid any roads that any other semi is allowed to use. I can roll down a street lined with houses or right past a school, and I have.

and you clearly state leave it up to the worker.

I say I am capable of driving 20 hours a stretch...dont you trust me, "Give the benfit of the doubt to the worker" right...not safety...but the guy who gets paid to drive, or roast in a fecking kitchen.

Because we have our safety in mind...and yours..honest.
So as you said give me the benfit of the doubt...right?

and that...pretty much says it all.

Considerably less perilous. I've been a baker myself, and worked 16-hour days to that effect. Not analogous to air-traffic control. No one dies if you fail. Bread gets chewy, or breaks, or is too thick, but no one dies. :)

You die.
The guy in the heat.
My buddy cooks pizzas in a nice brick oven, in the summer the kitchen tops over 120 degrees constantly. That is death. Luckily his boss doesnt expect anyone to stay in the oven area any longer then it takes to throw in and throw out. I doubt this baker had the same luxury.

Sounds stupefyingly simple, I know. But you'd be surprised of the number of Communists/Socialists/authoritarians around here who would in a trice reject freedoms that basic. Freedom can be a hard sell to some.

I don't think you should be speaking for the communists/socialists etc thanks.

No, hualing none of those things do I have to avoid any roads that any other semi is allowed to use. I can roll down a street lined with houses or right past a school, and I have.

and you clearly state leave it up to the worker.

I say I am capable of driving 20 hours a stretch...dont you trust me, "Give the benfit of the doubt to the worker" right...not safety...but the guy who gets paid to drive, or roast in a fecking kitchen.

Because we have our safety in mind...and yours..honest.
So as you said give me the benfit of the doubt...right?

I've never stated "leave it up to the worker" in cases of perilous occupations, where failure can cause death, mass panic, etc. I think I've been clear on that. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in many - not all - occupations though, certainly - the option to contract with others on your own terms, provided you're within the law.

I don't think you should be speaking for the communists/socialists etc thanks.

Against, not for. ;)

Sounds stupefyingly simple, I know. But you'd be surprised of the number of Communists/Socialists/authoritarians around here who would in a trice reject freedoms that basic. Freedom can be a hard sell to some.

I'm an attorney. I'm a member of the ACLU. I have, in my legal profession, done...oh I'd say....an average of 2 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for the last...5 years of pro bono work for the ACLU, so let's say about 500 hours. I believe in the constitution, I believe in freedom, I believe in liberty.

I believe that liberties should only be curtailed when necessary. I also believe that the idea that an employment contract is evenly sided is a myth, and that employers have considerable power over potential employees. As such I believe that restrictions on employment contracts are necessary and proper for the greater good. I think when someone is handling hot equipment and preparing food is one of those situations when restrictions are proper.

I'm an attorney. I'm a member of the ACLU. I have, in my legal profession, done...oh I'd say....an average of 2 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for the last...5 years of pro bono work for the ACLU, so let's say about 500 hours. I believe in the constitution, I believe in freedom, I believe in liberty.

I believe that liberties should only be curtailed when necessary. I also believe that the idea that an employment contract is evenly sided is a myth, and that employers have considerable power over potential employees. As such I believe that restrictions on employment contracts are necessary and proper for the greater good. I think when someone is handling hot equipment and preparing food is one of those situations when restrictions are proper.

That's quite refreshing to hear, in all honesty. :) I'm not educated as to the minutiae of law, but it seems that the gulf betwen our opinions of it is not wide. Restrictions as to occupational hazards, I believe, should be addressed in due course by relevant authorities, and I wouldn't contradict them when their findings are reasonable.

I've never stated "leave it up to the worker" in cases of perilous occupations, where failure can cause death, mass panic, etc. I think I've been clear on that.

There's always risk in any profession. I could get a severe paper cut and bleed to death, or get into an accident on the way to the court room. The question is how MUCH risk is there to warrant such an intrusion. And who should decide that, but for a democratically elected government?

You?

But you'd be surprised of the number of Communists/Socialists/authoritarians around here who would in a trice reject freedoms that basic.

Hi. I'm a communist.

Tell me... what "basic freedoms" would I "in a trice" reject?

I've never stated "leave it up to the worker" in cases of perilous occupations, where failure can cause death, mass panic, etc. I think I've been clear on that. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in many - not all - occupations though, certainly - the option to contract with others on your own terms, provided you're within the law.

Who decides what is perilous? Taxi drivers can kill, they have no restrictions and can work none stop.

Doctors? Surgeons, Nurses, Steel workers, Hilo operators...you know small hilo can weigh as much as 6000lbs and larger ones can weigh over 15000 lbs and be no bigger then a SUV and travel at 15 miles per hour do you know what 15,000lbs at 15 miles per hour can do?

Boat pilots have no restrictions,

Police...the guys with guns.
Armed Guards...the dude with GED and 9mm ...48 hours and ticking and its perfetly legal until he shoots your wife for holding up her cell phone.

Where as you suggest commercial driving is perilous...Commecial Drivers are responsible for I believe less then 5% of the accidents resulting in fatalities on the road, I know a dozen men who have logged 1,000,000 miles with no accidents. Most companies issue a patch and award for your first million no accidents...your first. Its like getting your cherry popped.

So while i am in one of the safest proffessions in the country that doesnt involve wearing a suit you call it perilous.

Who decides?

You die.
The guy in the heat.
My buddy cooks pizzas in a nice brick oven, in the summer the kitchen tops over 120 degrees constantly. That is death. Luckily his boss doesnt expect anyone to stay in the oven area any longer then it takes to throw in and throw out. I doubt this baker had the same luxury.

Naturally ovens are dangerous to varying degrees. It would be quite a feat indeed to injure oneself in an oven such as I worked with, but perhaps more likely to certain other bakers, or industrial kiln workers, etc., to take it a step farther. In serious cases, it's no stretch to think that an employment contract may be countermanded by relevant authorities if it is unreasonable or might threaten a worker.

I forgot school bus drivers...no restrictions on that drive time either...niether is there on the grey hound boys...crazy.

Naturally ovens are dangerous to varying degrees. It would be quite a feat indeed to injure oneself in an oven such as I worked with

as I asked, in 1906?

Naturally ovens are dangerous to varying degrees. It would be quite a feat indeed to injure oneself in an oven such as I worked with, but perhaps more likely to certain other bakers, or industrial kiln workers, etc., to take it a step farther. In serious cases, it's no stretch to think that an employment contract may be countermanded by relevant authorities if it is unreasonable or might threaten a worker.

Do you understand the concept that HEAT kills people? Prolonged constant exposure to heat. Iam not suggestiing you might accidentally crawl inside that bitch and cook yourself. But you could very easily collapse and then its a wrap.

There's always risk in any profession. I could get a severe paper cut and bleed to death, or get into an accident on the way to the court room. The question is how MUCH risk is there to warrant such an intrusion. And who should decide that, but for a democratically elected government?

You?

There's always risk in anything, I agree. I've never advocated eliminating government - I'm no anarchist. :p But I would give whatever authority is possible, all things being equal, to the person or people actually taking the risk. We don't need actuaries micro-managing each step we take on the job, but nor indeed do we want Washington breathing down our necks as we punch in and out at work. In practice, it would involve regulation, to be sure - I only hope (perhaps idealistically) to leave liberty of contract in tace wherever possible.

as I asked, in 1906?

I wasn't around in 1906 and am no historian. Though, now that you mention it - I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that the oven I worked with was *built* in or prior to 1906. :p

But I would give whatever authority is possible, all things being equal, to the person or people actually taking the risk.

The logical implication of this principle is self-management, not the unrestricted right of contract.

So while i am in one of the safest proffessions in the country that doesnt involve wearing a suit you call it perilous.

And you know, speaking of "suits" you raise a point. I wear a suit just about every day. I am in an occupation where I am virtually no risk to myself or clients or bystanders. My profession is in no circumstances one that could cause risk of injury or death in any reasonable way.

Under this system, my profession would be effectively unregulated.

I am a lawyer. My 2006 edition of Gillers' and Simon's Regulation of Lawyers: Statutes and Standards is, with index, statutes, supplements, commentary, model rules and select provisions of various state law is JUST over 1000 pages.

Now, those who employee lawyers, those who the lawyers contract with is either their clients, or, in the case of firms, the firm, who contracts with the client. You say my conduct with my employer/client should be limited by the contract. I gaurentee you, if I were allowed, I know ways to severely screw you over, and when I say this and note that while you assume a contract would regulate my behavior vis-a-vis you, I do ask you to keep in mind, I'm the one who knows how to write a contract. And I gaurentee you, if I were allowed, I could write a contract that would allow me to do just that, in ways you'd never know.

Do you REALLY want us to not be regulated?

I am a lawyer. My 2006 edition of Gillers' and Simon's Regulation of Lawyers: Statutes and Standards is, with index, statutes, supplements, commentary, model rules and select provisions of various state law is JUST over 1000 pages.

Do you REALLY want us to not be regulated?

As little as is necessary, certainly. The law is always going to be a process of proposition and review, proposition and review, ad infinitum. The principle should be, in the interest of freedom, to whittle down those 1000 pages to a more reasonable number if they are found to be excessive - to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

As little as is necessary, certainly.

Nobody advocates regulations they view as unnecessary.

The argument is not over whether regulations should be necessary; it is over whether or not they are necessary.

And you know, speaking of "suits" you raise a point. I wear a suit just about every day. I am in an occupation where I am virtually no risk to myself or clients or bystanders. My profession is in no circumstances one that could cause risk of injury or death in any reasonable way.

Under this system, my profession would be effectively unregulated.

I am a lawyer. My 2006 edition of Gillers' and Simon's Regulation of Lawyers: Statutes and Standards is, with index, statutes, supplements, commentary, model rules and select provisions of various state law is JUST over 1000 pages.

Do you REALLY want us to not be regulated?

Well I am trying to make the point that regulation is required. But that using his (Pete Crabbe) logic one can easily argue that no job is perilous.

Safety in the work place is not something that should be triffled with, the Unions were origianlly created for a reason...a good one. and it wasnt for an extra coffee break.

Repealing genuine regulation opens the door to real perils for everyone.

and for the record, I want my lawyer to be forced to get a good nights sleep before he is doing something for my ass.

The logical implication of this principle is self-management, not the unrestricted right of contract.

I wasn't advocating the dissolution of the governing authorities, complete lack of restrictions, or any such thing. The problem is, that I offered, pages ago, a specific opinion, and was thereafter asked to explain it in more and more general terms, rather unexpectedly. I hope this doesn't all sound like equivocation, but that tends to happen when you start with specifics and regress to general principles. ;)

Well I am trying to make the point that regulation is required. But that using his (Pete Crabbe) logic one can easily argue that no job is perilous.

Safety in the work place is not something that should be triffled with, the Unions were origianlly created for a reason...a good one. and it wasnt for an extra coffee break.

Repealing genuine regulation opens the door to real perils for everyone.

and for the record, I want my lawyer to be forced to get a good nights sleep before he is doing something for my ass.

well I was more generating that to him, hehe. And for what it's worth, there are no minimum hour restrictions on lawyers....unfortunatly.

We probably have one of the highest work hours per week of any profession.

well I was more generating that to him, hehe. And for what it's worth, there are no minimum hour restrictions on lawyers....unfortunatly.

We probably have one of the highest work hours per week of any profession.

Very true. I do hear, though, that those numbers are coming down in some cases, to a more suitable level for top graduates, and without regulatory measures involved. It's still a good number of hours, but usually well-compensated hours. :)

I dont know much history of hte law.
I do know a bit about the history of the worker, and safety is a big issue in this country because it wasnt before.

Taking the for granted the struggle that got us this far is wrong.

OSHA, your MSDS, restrictions on forced overtime, child labor, reasonable expectation of safety, the RIGHT to be informed.

If we start cutting away at what we have, we run the risk of having it all crumble.

as was stated, everyone agrees that necessary regulation is necessary (duh). The question becomes what people think is necessary. People who tend to argue for Lochner tend to be the types of "no restrictions on liberty, at all!" folks. Now we can debate what constitutes a "good" regulation or not all you want (though it's somewhat offtopic here), but you tend not to be in good company when you start praising Lochner

We probably have one of the highest work hours per week of any profession.

Fuck. Why didn't you tell me this BEFORE I started law school?

as was stated, everyone agrees that necessary regulation is necessary (duh). The question becomes what people think is necessary. People who tend to argue for Lochner tend to be the types of "no restrictions on liberty, at all!" folks. Now we can debate what constitutes a "good" regulation or not all you want (though it's somewhat offtopic here), but you tend not to be in good company when you start praising Lochner

It may be true that the fringe is attracted to Lochner's wide language. I referenced it for its expounding of a principle that I generally agree with, specifically in the context of the Gay Marriege debate. My intention was not to say that "Lochner explains everything perfectly," but rather "my advocacy of Gay rights, in principle, needs be no more complicated than Lochner." That is to say, that I view marriage much in the same light as I view freedom of contract - allow the most liberty possible. :)

It may be true that the fringe is attracted to Lochner's wide language. I referenced it for its expounding of a principle that I generally agree with, specifically in the context of the Gay Marriege debate. My intention was not to say that "Lochner explains everything perfectly," but rather "my advocacy of Gay rights, in principle, needs be no more complicated than Lochner." That is to say, that I view marriage much in the same light as I view freedom of contract - allow the most liberty possible. :)

OK, fair enough. And to be honest, I agree with the general CONCEPT of lochner (freedom is good). I don't say this because...I'm a lawyer, and words like "you know, this Lochner case isn't so bad..." tends to get you scorn and derision from my peers.

But yes, if you want to look at Lochner for the general proposition of "freedom = good" and say that in the context of gay marriage "freedom = good" then sure, I'd dont disagree.

I don't disagree with Lochner in general principle. I greatly disagree with Lochner on its ruling on that particular law however, and I think if Lochner is taken to its logical extreme, it would be horribly destructive.

As such, to agree with Lochner, outside of the broad principle of "freedom = good" (and frankly there are much better cases to cite for that general proposition, Lawrence v. Texas being one of them) is to agree with such an extreme as to be nonsensical, and create effective anarchy.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

Trust me, Fass. It won't get it's second reading. With Deval Patrick as Governor it is deader than a week old mackerel in the sun. Gay marriage is there to stay in MA. When it fails this time, right-wing groups won't have enough to much of anything in MA.

I too, don't like civil unions, but I was born and raised in the US. I consider civil unions a step towards marriage in name as well as fact, and sooner or later there will be enough states with civil unions to present same sex marriage as a fait accompli. In the meantime to reject civil unions when they represent progress is damn foolish. The next step is to have a majority of states with civil unions so we may have the ammunition to rename it marriage. Once enough states legalize some form of civil union, then the Federal government will HAVE to fall in line.

Civil rights struggles in the US are long, drawn out and painful. We are not as socially enlightened as Sweden or other liberal European nations. We are essentially still a bunch of hicks with a lot of guns and too much power.

Right wing groups, in Scandinavia?!? You have just totally blown my perfect view of those countries out of the water, thanks, I would have preferred being ignorant.

Marriage is foremost a contract, after all.

I'm gay, and I'm inclined to disagree...marriage is a sacrament, a union between two souls. the civil part of it is a contract, of course, but the denial of the spiritual aspect of marriage is damaging to society, I have to agree with my own critics here. the only part I disagree with them on is that they refuse to acknowledge the fundamental spiritual worth of our unions...which is just as damaging as any perceived "attack on marriage" on our part would be.

You are not a country - Sweden is, and by the way, you are moving to ban it with a constitutional amendment, so don't put on a show for me.

yes, hush you, don't threaten fass' righteous liberal superiority.

Currently, this is incorrect because of DOMA. Now, when DOMA eventually has a challenge that the US Supreme Court can't sidestep on a technical issue, I fully expect it to be declared unconstitutional. But states cannot currently be required to recognize same-sex marriages from Mass. And Mass. law currently keeps any out-of-state same-sex couples from getting married there anyways, so the challenge will have to come from a couple that gets married and then moves to another state.

.

We also have a residency restriction...which in all essence makes in unequal. I'm not sure what it is, but it's fairly lengthy. I offered my address to my sister and her partner to use, if they wanted to get married, but it would require quite a bit of lying to the government and the IRS (I think) to pull it off. It was something none of us were overly comfortable with. You've peaked my interest though...I'll have to do some research, as I said, I had thought that because they used the word marriage, it was required to be treated as such.

I'm gay, and I'm inclined to disagree...marriage is a sacrament, a union between two souls. the civil part of it is a contract, of course, but the denial of the spiritual aspect of marriage is damaging to society, I have to agree with my own critics here.

Just so everybody knows how fair and even-handed I can be...

BUNK.

Gay or straight, anybody who claims that marriage has to be viewed as "spiritual" or "sacred" is full of it.

It's not automatically damaging to society to view marriage as a contract. My parents have viewed it as such for 30 years. They will both deny any "spiritual" part of their union, and they'll certainly deny it's got anything to do with "souls," since neither one believes in souls. Their marriage is about as stable and loving as you could possibly expect. Their union has benefited society in countless ways over the last three decades.

Marriage is a contract, a partnership, an agreement between individuals. It means whatever THOSE INDIVIDUALS decide it means. If they decide it's a sacrament, good for them. If they decide it's a contract, good for them.

What hurts society is when people go around trying to tell others what their marriage is supposed to mean. Society is better off when people stop being so bossy and focus on dealing with actual problems.

Earlier today Governor John Lynch signed a bill, passed by the Legislature in late April, into law. This new law legalizes same sex civil unions in the state of New Hampshire. While these civil unions will offer privilidges, responsibilities, and benefits at a state level effectively identical to married heterosexual couples, they will not be refered to, legally, as marriages.

Source (http://www.towleroad.com/2007/05/new_hampshire_g.html)

New Hampshire joins Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey as other states that also offer same sex civil unions that are effectively identical in all but name to heterosexual marriages. California has a system that grants nearly all, but not all of the rights of marriage.

I applaud the legislature for deciding this issue and not the court. Congratulations.

Just so everybody knows how fair and even-handed I can be...

BUNK.

Gay or straight, anybody who claims that marriage has to be viewed as "spiritual" or "sacred" is full of it.



What hurts society is when people go around trying to tell others what their marriage is supposed to mean. Society is better off when people stop being so bossy and focus on dealing with actual problems.

Evangelical Baptist here.
I agree 100%.
As a society Marriage is good, it adds stability and structure to our worlds. It adds security.
But lets be honest, one doesnt need to believe in spirituality to enter into marriage legally? It is not required...a judge can marry you.

So homosexuals should be allowed to be married LEGALLY as the Law doesnt ...or rather isnt supposed to provide special protections(Judeo-Christian ideas of Marital Partnerships) or Equal but Seperate rights(Civil Unions).

If you are a Christian and you are adhering to the bible you can claim that "I cant marry you because it says right here 'Between a man and Woman' I am very sorry that would be a breach of my faith" but!!!! The next line should be "But maybe a UNitarian minister to marry you, or you dont really even need a minister, you can have Judge or Justice of the Peace do it. Really any Licensed CLergy of any recognized Religion can perform the ceremony or a Judge can. You have a vast amount of options I am sorry our small community has to say 'no'."

Religion can not be compelled to violate its doctrine...but Legal Marriage CAN NOT be associated with religious doctrine. Its fucking wrong.
This is America, not Iran. We are not a Theocracy, there are Seperations of Church and State, and the denial of Homosexual marriages is based soley on religious doctrine. If there are some radical homosexual who have point to prove and want churches to be forced to offer Marriage Ceremonies the boo to them for forcing themselves on people trying to mind there own business.

But I have never seen that!!!!Homosexuals just want to get fucking married!!
Share insurance, Social Security, estates, child custody.

Damn.

Why is it so hard for people to see this is not a big fucking deal?
Let thsoe religious people who opt out of perfoming ceremonies be allowed to do so, but there must be the option of using the legal system...a judge or justice of the peace or a minister who willing to perform the ceremony should be allowed to do so by the state.

I am irratated again. I hate this fucking thread.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - recognizing more marriages is NOT a step in the right direction. If the government wants to go in the right direction here? Here's how many new marriages it needs to recognize.

NONE.

Straight, gay, or otherwise. Government needs to make the final push and get the hell out of marriage. For good. Some substitute for inheritance, insurance, etc. purposes can be devised, the type that isn't contingent on marital bliss and what-not. As for marriage? It's between a man and a woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman or three men and two women, or a man, two women, and a buste of Van Buren, or a duck, a ferret, and a Chihuahua. And maybe a deity. But it's not with the state. The state has better things to do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - recognizing more marriages is NOT a step in the right direction. If the government wants to go in the right direction here? Here's how many new marriages it needs to recognize.

NONE.

Straight, gay, or otherwise. Government needs to make the final push and get the hell out of marriage. For good. Some substitute for inheritance, insurance, etc. purposes can be devised, the type that isn't contingent on marital bliss and what-not. As for marriage? It's between a man and a woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman or three men and two women, or a man, two women, and a buste of Van Buren, or a duck, a ferret, and a Chihuahua. And maybe a deity. But it's not with the state. The state has better things to do.

Fundamentally, I agree with you.
But there is greater complexity in the implimentation of your plan. A new system would need to be created to replace marriage in the legal statutes...of each state. Would previous parriages be null and void and would people need to go join part inthis new system or can they grandfather in, what about confusion as to how the new system works? This would be very hard to accomplish.

But, simply legalizing same sex marriage changes nothing but what genders are allowed to participate...this is a more simple fix.

Fundamentally, I agree with you.
But there is greater complexity in the implimentation of your plan. A new system would need to be created to replace marriage in the legal statutes...of each state. Would previous parriages be null and void and would people need to go join part inthis new system or can they grandfather in, what about confusion as to how the new system works? This would be very hard to accomplish.

It could be tricky, but I picture it like this - a grandfathered system under which all previously established marriages are still recognized. However, the new system kicks in on a certain date, and what happens is this - all the legal ramifications of marriage are spelled out in a single form. Inheritance, insurance, etc. There would be check boxes for "I authorize all of the above" for people to reciprocate if they are a "married" couple. However, as far as some benefits go, they are the type of things that can be given out to any number of people and should be. The right to be visited in a hospital? If someone wants that, it should be granted. Encouragement to work these things out in advance will likely be more necessary, but that should be done anyway.

And no more joint tax returns. And no more so-called "marriage penalties." Taxpayers become equal under the law regardless of marital status. Children are another story.

But, simply legalizing same sex marriage changes nothing but what genders are allowed to participate...this is a more simple fix.

It's simpler, yes. But a lot of things are "simpler" and still broken. Marriage is less broken than, say the penal system or the education system, but change would still be effective.

I applaud the legislature for deciding this issue and not the court.

See, and this is the kind of shit I was talking about. What exactly do you know of the constitutions of NJ, MA, and VT?

Why is it so hard for people to see this is not a big fucking deal?
Let thsoe religious people who opt out of perfoming ceremonies be allowed to do so, but there must be the option of using the legal system...a judge or justice of the peace or a minister who willing to perform the ceremony should be allowed to do so by the state.

I am irratated again. I hate this fucking thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ6TCLPR4Ks&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbulletin%2Emyspace%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ecfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dbulletin%2Eread%26messageID% 3D3583841760%26Mytoken%3DD2015548%2DBC9D%2D47C5%2DAE2

There, you might enjoy that. =)

It could be tricky, but I picture it like this - a grandfathered system under which all previously established marriages are still recognized. However, the new system kicks in on a certain date, and what happens is this - all the legal ramifications of marriage are spelled out in a single form. Inheritance, insurance, etc. There would be check boxes for "I authorize all of the above" for people to reciprocate if they are a "married" couple.

So, you're basically talking about a marriage license, eh? Why change the name, then?

However, as far as some benefits go, they are the type of things that can be given out to any number of people and should be. The right to be visited in a hospital? If someone wants that, it should be granted. Encouragement to work these things out in advance will likely be more necessary, but that should be done anyway.

Most of the legal protections associated with marriage can be obtained through other means. The reason that marriage is so convenient is that it wraps so many of them up into one legal step, rather than having to fill out lots and lots of forms and go through all the bureaucracy to get certain things.

And no more joint tax returns.

Why not? My husband and I jointly own all of our money - as we wish to. If we jointly own assets (and jointly owe debt) - and that is the way we want it, why should the government fail to recognize this fact?

And no more so-called "marriage penalties."

I agree here. Being married should not mean that the couple ends up paying more in taxes.

Taxpayers become equal under the law regardless of marital status.

The problem here is that taxpayers are not the same regardless of marital status. Once your assets and debts are combined, it makes no sense to tax the couple separately - and opens up all sorts of avenues for tax fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ6TCLPR4Ks&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbulletin%2Emyspace%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ecfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dbulletin%2Eread%26messageID% 3D3583841760%26Mytoken%3DD2015548%2DBC9D%2D47C5%2DAE2

There, you might enjoy that. =)

Well yeah. That about sums up the personal issue. I understand the Christian drive to "Save sinners", but I also heard this story once where Christ looked at these cats and said "Let he who is without sin cast the stone" ...Well if the only thing wrong with homosexuality is that it can be called a sin...I am putting my rocks down. Because I dont have the biblical RIGHT to say shit other then..."Me too, Jesus Saves...have a great day."...

So yeah what is the big screaming deal?

A good compromise, let them civil-unionize, if that's the verb.

Why not just let them marry?


Regardless my social views,

By which you mean, "homophobia", correct?

Why not just let them marry?

By which you mean, "homophobia", correct?

I'm always pleasantly surprised by the sheer amount of goodwill to be found here, always giving your fellow man the benefit of the doubt, and all that. I feel loved, truly. :p

Anyway, no - I don't mean "homophobia." ;)

I'm always pleasantly surprised by the sheer amount of goodwill to be found here, always giving your fellow man the benefit of the doubt, and all that. I feel loved, truly. :p

Anyway, no - I don't mean "homophobia." ;)

This is NSG! *kicks you down a well*

I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner, with the Free State Project being up there.

So, you're basically talking about a marriage license, eh? Why change the name, then?

Not exactly. A marriage license is a whole big block of rights and responsibilities that's one-size-fits-all and is very limiting. Some of the rights associated today with marriage are not necessarily specific to marriage.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12722706]Most of the legal protections associated with marriage can be obtained through other means. The reason that marriage is so convenient is that it wraps so many of them up into one legal step, rather than having to fill out lots and lots of forms and go through all the bureaucracy to get certain things.

That's why there would be an option to simply click "I give all rights to this person" rather than signing a bunch of forms. The idea is that the forms could be combined or separated depending on what a person wants to do. Really, they would be several groups of forms that require nothing more than a signature.

Why not? My husband and I jointly own all of our money - as we wish to. If we jointly own assets (and jointly owe debt) - and that is the way we want it, why should the government fail to recognize this fact?

In most cases, it's not an issue of the government recognizing joint ventures; it's private industry. If two people have a credit card together or something, why should they have to be married? People get joint credit cards, loans, etc. all the time, so finances and credit are a massive maze anyway. Marriage does not solve this. I co-signed a car loan for my wife back when we were engaged; even if we had broken up, that would still be my name on the loan and the car title. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

The problem here is that taxpayers are not the same regardless of marital status. Once your assets and debts are combined, it makes no sense to tax the couple separately - and opens up all sorts of avenues for tax fraud.

I don't see how it opens up avenues for tax fraud, simply because married couples can file separately anyway.

I have a question... and honestly, I'm not trying to be facetious...

When a gay couple decides to marry... does one or the other change their last name? if so, is that provided for in this new law?

If not, the point is moot. Carry on.

Not exactly. A marriage license is a whole big block of rights and responsibilities that's one-size-fits-all and is very limiting.

It isn't "limiting" because one doesn't have to get married. If you want all of the protections and responsibilities entailed in marriage, you can get them all at once - conveniently. If you want something more tailored, you can get that as well, but it will be time consuming and likely expensive.

Some of the rights associated today with marriage are not necessarily specific to marriage.

Exactly. But marriage is the only way to get them all at once.

That's why there would be an option to simply click "I give all rights to this person" rather than signing a bunch of forms. The idea is that the forms could be combined or separated depending on what a person wants to do. Really, they would be several groups of forms that require nothing more than a signature.

...except nothing in the law works that way. It's a nice idea. Get back to me when you can make it work.

In most cases, it's not an issue of the government recognizing joint ventures; it's private industry. If two people have a credit card together or something, why should they have to be married? People get joint credit cards, loans, etc. all the time, so finances and credit are a massive maze anyway. Marriage does not solve this. I co-signed a car loan for my wife back when we were engaged; even if we had broken up, that would still be my name on the loan and the car title. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

There is a difference between jointly signing on something and truly co-owning it. And the legalities of what to do in case of a dispute or, worse, death of one of the people in the couple, are much messier outside of marriage.

I don't see how it opens up avenues for tax fraud, simply because married couples can file separately anyway.

Yes, they can. But they can't get away without paying debts simply because one of them claims a lack of funds - something that could happen otherwise. Because they have joint ownership of all assets, the government (or other debtors) can expect payment out of those assets. If my husband says he doesn't have enough money to pay his debts and tries to file for bankruptcy (as an example), he can't unless we jointly don't have enough money. This means that he cannot simply transfer his money over to me, or have him paying all the bills while I save up a bunch of money, and then try to get out of his debts.

I have a question... and honestly, I'm not trying to be facetious...

When a gay couple decides to marry... does one or the other change their last name? if so, is that provided for in this new law?

If not, the point is moot. Carry on.

Some do. Some choose a completely new name. Some hyphenate. Some concatenate.

One thing that is interesting that people have just begun to challenge is that fact that every state allows a woman to change her name without paying extra when she gets married. Only four extend that same convenience to men. (Otherwise, men who get married have to go through a legal name change, which is a long and expensive process that can be blocked simply because a judge doesn't like it).

Not all of the states with same-sex marriage or civil unions have laws making it easy for men to change their names which means, presumably, that both members of a lesbian couple could go through a name change but either or both members of a gay couple would have to go through the lengthy and expensive legal name change process. I haven't really seen anything out there about this problem, however - probably because gay couples have been getting name changes without actual legal recognition of their marriages for a while now.

Some do. Some choose a completely new name. Some hyphenate. Some concatenate.

One thing that is interesting that people have just begun to challenge is that fact that every state allows a woman to change her name without paying extra when she gets married. Only four extend that same convenience to men. (Otherwise, men who get married have to go through a legal name change, which is a long and expensive process that can be blocked simply because a judge doesn't like it).

Not all of the states with same-sex marriage or civil unions have laws making it easy for men to change their names which means, presumably, that both members of a lesbian couple could go through a name change but either or both members of a gay couple would have to go through the lengthy and expensive legal name change process. I haven't really seen anything out there about this problem, however - probably because gay couples have been getting name changes without actual legal recognition of their marriages for a while now.

Thank you.

Actually the topic of the ease of women changing their names vs. men came up recently when my new bride was looking into it. I was surprised to find that men have so much more difficulty. I had always assumed that the process was the same for either party, but that it was just customary for the wife to change her name.

Thank you.

Actually the topic of the ease of women changing their names vs. men came up recently when my new bride was looking into it. I was surprised to find that men have so much more difficulty. I had always assumed that the process was the same for either party, but that it was just customary for the wife to change her name.

I had always thought that as well. When my husband and I started discussing the idea of both changing our names (hyphenating), I looked into it. Luckily (considering that's what we settled on), my state is one of the four in which we'll both have to go through the same amount of hassle, rather than him having more. Who would've thought that GA was ahead of the curve on anything, eh?

I'm always pleasantly surprised by the sheer amount of goodwill to be found here, always giving your fellow man the benefit of the doubt, and all that. I feel loved, truly. :p

Anyway, no - I don't mean "homophobia." ;)

I apologize. It's just that "Regardless of my societal views, this is a good compromise" I tend to interpret as you do not approve of this bill. And of course, that's just blatantly screwing over homosexuals (NOT LIKE THAT! GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER!), which would, of course, be homophobic.

SOMEBODY APOLOGIZED ON NSG! RUN! RUN CHILDREN!

I agree here. Being married should not mean that the couple ends up paying more in taxes.
It wasn't so very long ago in the US that it was beneficial from a tax point of view for a couple to be married, and in situations where there's only one member working outside the home, it still is. But most couples now involve two incomes--if my girlfriend and I got married, we'd be bumped into a higher tax bracket than we are individually, so we're better off tax wise staying unmarried. That's not our primary reason, mind you--in fact, I imagine if we added up what we spend on separate insurance policies and the like, we'd probably come out about even. We've just both been married before and even though we've been together nearly seven years and planning on starting a family soon, we're just not sold on the idea of marriage.

It wasn't so very long ago in the US that it was beneficial from a tax point of view for a couple to be married, and in situations where there's only one member working outside the home, it still is.

I love how people still believe that there is some sort of 'marriage tax break' though.

It wasn't so very long ago in the US that it was beneficial from a tax point of view for a couple to be married, and in situations where there's only one member working outside the home, it still is. But most couples now involve two incomes--if my girlfriend and I got married, we'd be bumped into a higher tax bracket than we are individually, so we're better off tax wise staying unmarried. That's not our primary reason, mind you--in fact, I imagine if we added up what we spend on separate insurance policies and the like, we'd probably come out about even. We've just both been married before and even though we've been together nearly seven years and planning on starting a family soon, we're just not sold on the idea of marriage.

Exactly. The tax brackets used for married couples were originally designed with a single-income household in mind. Since very few households are single-income households anymore, it is quite common for a married couple to get taxed more than they would separately. According to my aunt (our accountant), my husband and I probably won't get bumped into a higher tax bracket - at least not yet. And the convenience is enough for me to be ok with it even if there is a slight increase.

According to my aunt (our accountant), my husband and I probably won't get bumped into a higher tax bracket - at least not yet. And the convenience is enough for me to be ok with it even if there is a slight increase.
Well, the gov't here got sick of unmarried couples not getting taxed the same as married couples, so they slapped us all into the 'commonlaw' category and gouged us equally :D

Well, the gov't here got sick of unmarried couples not getting taxed the same as married couples, so they slapped us all into the 'commonlaw' category and gouged us equally :D

The only option left, I suppose, is to be gay then. ;)

The only option left, I suppose, is to be gay then. ;)

I think Canada legalized gay marriage, but I could be wrong, so no dice.

I think Canada legalized gay marriage, but I could be wrong, so no dice.

But are they listing same-sex couples as common law marriage?

See, and this is the kind of shit I was talking about. What exactly do you know of the constitutions of NJ, MA, and VT?

You know what? Nothing! however, when the state legislatures decide something, it is a good thing. I am not condemning it. I APPLAUD IT! understand?

I apologize. It's just that "Regardless of my societal views, this is a good compromise" I tend to interpret as you do not approve of this bill. And of course, that's just blatantly screwing over homosexuals (NOT LIKE THAT! GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER!), which would, of course, be homophobic.

SOMEBODY APOLOGIZED ON NSG! RUN! RUN CHILDREN!

No harm, no foul. :) I probably could've phrased it more clearly. I meant to say that my liberty of contract concerns outweighed any social concerns, in that our basic freedoms should be guaranteed, not a matter of social policy.

You know what? Nothing! however, when the state legislatures decide something, it is a good thing.

Not even you believes something so pollyannish.

I am not condemning it. I APPLAUD IT! understand?

Of course you do. You fully support the doctrine of seperate but equal.

No harm, no foul. :) I probably could've phrased it more clearly. I meant to say that my liberty of contract concerns outweighed any social concerns, in that our basic freedoms should be guaranteed, not a matter of social policy.

If you so strongly support liberty of contract, why do you support the seperate but equal compromise of that liberty?

I find it interesting that devolved government is apparently a conservative thing in US politics, yet in UK politics it is exactly opposite. UK conservatism is all about the centralising. Ain't that funny?

If you so strongly support liberty of contract, why do you support the seperate but equal compromise of that liberty?

Like anyone, I want the government to live up to my ideals, but I'm not foolish enough to expect that to be the case in all instances. I'm always happy when progress is made, however. :)

Of course you do. You fully support the doctrine of seperate but equal.

Does that fly in the face of Brown?

I find it interesting that devolved government is apparently a conservative thing in US politics, yet in UK politics it is exactly opposite. UK conservatism is all about the centralising. Ain't that funny?

Strange, but probably just a side-effect of Conservatives here often having concerns about Federalism, etc. Different sort of situation there, I'd think.

Does that fly in the face of Brown?

Wadda you think, brainiac?

Wadda you think, brainiac?

How mature :rolleyes:

Now try answering the question without the sarcasm.

Like anyone, I want the government to live up to my ideals, but I'm not foolish enough to expect that to be the case in all instances. I'm always happy when progress is made, however. :)

Your words don't quite match that sentiment. You called it a "good compromise," not "a step in the right direction."

Are you now saying that you fully support the right to same sex marriage, but also support any steps in that direction?

How mature :rolleyes:

Now try answering the question without the sarcasm.

It wasn't a mature question. It borders on either the nonsensical or the inane.

Try answering it yourself. Seriously.

It wasn't a mature question. It borders on either the nonsensical or the inane.

Try answering it yourself. Seriously.

I asked you a question that you are refusing to answer. So now try answering the question instead of being an immature brat that you are appearing to be.

Your words don't quite match that sentiment. You called it a "good compromise," not "a step in the right direction."

Are you now saying that you fully support the right to same sex marriage, but also support any steps in that direction?

Yes, now. And a few pages ago too. :p Marriage, carrying as it does tax and economic implications, is in many ways analogous to a contract - I'm for the maximum amount of freedom of contract that can be given, as a rule. The way I read the original article, the compromise was fairly complete - a "good" compromise, as opposed to a "bad" one, but still a compromise. Any compromise, by definition, is not ideal.

I asked you a question that you are refusing to answer. So now try answering the question instead of being an immature brat that you are appearing to be.

The "immature brat" is the one sulkingly insisting on an answer to a nonsensical or inane question. I thought that if you tried to answer it yourself, you'd see what a stupid question it was.

But as you refuse to engage your brain, I'll try to sort out your stupid question for you.

Is the doctrine of seperate but equal contradicted by Brown v. Board of Education? Of course. That is the central point of the case.

Does Brown literally apply to invalidate attempts to provide seperate but equal same-sex unions? Of course not. The case applied to school segregation based on race.

Now that I've answered your question, you can enlighten us on why your question meant anything.

The "immature brat" is the one sulkingly insisting on an answer to a nonsensical or inane question. I thought that if you tried to answer it yourself, you'd see what a stupid question it was.

But as you refuse to engage your brain, I'll try to sort out your stupid question for you.

Is the doctrine of seperate but equal contradicted by Brown v. Board of Education? Of course. That is the central point of the case.

Does Brown literally apply to invalidate attempts to provide seperate but equal same-sex unions? Of course not. The case applied to school segregation based on race.

Now that I've answered your question, you can enlighten us on why your question meant anything.

HA! I see you missed what I was getting at. You are most right that Brown overturned a previous Supreme Court Case that upheld seperate but equal. Brown stated otherwise.

I support the Brown decision and not the previous one. With that being said, the ideals that were stated under Brown need to be upheld. This is a step in that direction. Ergo, why I support what New Hampshire is doing. It is a step towards the ideals that began with Brown.

Do you understand where I am coming from now?

HA! I see you missed what I was getting at. You are most right that Brown overturned a previous Supreme Court Case that upheld seperate but equal. Brown stated otherwise.

The "previous Supreme Court Case" was Plessy v. Ferguson and no, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas did not overturn Plessy nor did it specifically invalidate the concept of seperate but equal. Theoretically seperate but equal is still a valid constitutional doctrine, however is rarely if ever applied due mainly to the problems with the concept as articulated in Brown. But no, Brown did not specifically overturn Plessy, and TCT never said it did.

Lancaster, Cat-Tribe, take a step back and calm down. Play nice.

It's very good news for New Hampshire but they don't have to gloat about it. Not all states are so lucky.

The "previous Supreme Court Case" was Plessy v. Ferguson and no, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas did not overturn Plessy nor did it specifically invalidate the concept of seperate but equal.

Actually...yes it did overturn Plessy. Thanks for the name. I could not remember it.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." This decision was pivotal to the struggle for racial desegregation in the United States. This exhibition commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of this landmark judicial case.

Plessy said seperate but equal. Brown on the other hand indicated otherwise. This was the start of undoing segregation though it took a heck of a lot longer to implement because as we all know, the court has no real authority to enforce its own rulings.

1954
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I): Plessy overturned; separate-but-equal violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of Equal Protection

http://brownat50.org/brownChrono/BrownChronology.htm

Lancaster, Cat-Tribe, take a step back and calm down. Play nice.

I am playing nice :)

*slips mod a cookie*

Actually...yes it did overturn Plessy. Thanks for the name. I could not remember it.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/

Plessy said seperate but equal. Brown on the other hand indicated otherwise.[/QUOTE]

I suggest you read your own quote

separate educational facilities are inherently unequal

I suggest you read that as many times as it takes until you understand the difference between "seperate but equal is unconstitutional" and "seperate in this instance can never be equal, thus it is unconstitutional since seperate but equal is inapplicable"

Brown said the later, despite your insistance it says the former. It said that seperate educational facilities, by their nature can never be equal. Therefore, since they never could be equal, the doctrine of seperate but equal simply did not apply, they weren't equal, and never could be.

It left open the question of, if there was an institution where seperate systems COULD be equal, would that be permissible. It did not overturn plessy. It rendered plessy inapplicable to that instant issue.

http://brownat50.org/brownChrono/BrownChronology.htm

Further proving that constitutional interpretation isn't suitable for everyone, and that just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true.

To quote more specifically relevant text to this point:

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

As I said, Brown did not specifically and universally void the concept of seperate but equal, it held that the doctrine of seperate but equal was inapplicable to public education as seperate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Those are vastily different things.

I wish to bring up Lawrence V. Texas, which declared anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

I was about to type that it had nothing to do with the thread and I just felt left out of the law-referencing, but then I noticed that this thread is, surprisingly enough, about gay people. You guys actually made me forget what thread I was posting in. I'm not making this up.

*snip*

I see you missed the point. Alwell...That is ok.

1954
May 17
Brown v. Board of Education
The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/timeline.html

So yes. Plessy was indeed overturned. And people say that I do not know what I am talking about. :rolleyes:

Oh and more links saying that Brown overturned Plessy:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954brown.html

The US Supreme court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Supreme Court had allowed held racial segregation in public places, including schools, as long as they provided "separate but equal " facilities. The equalizing aspects of the 14th Amendment to the constitution - with its insistence that all were equal before the law and government - was systematically gutted of any real effect by large parts of the American government at all levels.

http://www.lib.odu.edu/exhibits/blackhistorymonth/brownvboard/

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in which the Supreme Court said racial segregation in separate but equal facilities met the 14th Amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law.

But enough of this. Well done NH. It is a step in the right direction.

Okay...the first person to explain WHY THE FUCK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEGREGATION ON A THREAD ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS gets a cookie.

Okay...the first person to explain WHY THE FUCK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEGREGATION ON A THREAD ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS gets a cookie.

Because granting civil unions instead of marriage to gay couples is seen as a repetition of "separate but equal."

Because granting civil unions instead of marriage to gay couples is seen as a repetition of "separate but equal."

O...kay....

That may be a bit of a stretch.

O...kay....

That may be a bit of a stretch.


No it's really not. It's the same principle. A minority that's disliked is being told they can't have what the majority has, but they can have "this" which is sorta like what the majority has, but not nearly as good.

No it's really not. It's the same principle. A minority that's disliked is being told they can't have what the majority has, but they can have "this" which is sorta like what the majority has, but not nearly as good.

and some of us do want it to go further but recognize that this is a step in that direction.

No it's really not. It's the same principle. A minority that's disliked is being told they can't have what the majority has, but they can have "this" which is sorta like what the majority has, but not nearly as good.

Fair enough.

and some of us do want it to go further but recognize that this is a step in that direction.
Well, it depends. In America, where it's more of an issue, people are more likely to know and recognise the difference between gay marriage and civil unions. That means that it's not too difficult to, eventually, move from unions to marriage. In the UK, where it's not an issue (to anyone who doesn't read the Daily Mail) most people don't know the difference, and think we have gay marriage when we in fact only have civil unions - so it's unlikely to change, and "separate but equal" will remain.

and some of us do want it to go further but recognize that this is a step in that direction.

I see no reason to compromise when it comes to basic rights. How would you react if instead of absolute censorship you got merely oppressive censorship? Would you stop fighting for free speech?

I see no reason to compromise when it comes to basic rights. How would you react if instead of absolute censorship you got merely oppressive censorship? Would you stop fighting for free speech?

And what makes you think that people will not continue to fight to get full rights here? Right now, this is the best they were going to get. One day, they will have full rights. I will cheer that day.

That may be a bit of a stretch.

Well, the question for me is: does the notion of civil unions as opposed to marriage intrinsically undermine the equality and legitimacy of same-sex relationships, and therefore of same-sex attraction (and the people who experience it)?

I'm tempted to say "yes," because the basis of the distinction is pretty much necessarily founded on a conception of same-sex relationships as somehow "less." "Perhaps they deserve the same rights as we do... but their relationships will never really have the same value that ours do, and the state should recognize this."

Well, the question for me is: does the notion of civil unions as opposed to marriage intrinsically undermine the equality and legitimacy of same-sex relationships, and therefore of same-sex attraction (and the people who experience it)?

I'm tempted to say "yes," because the basis of the distinction is pretty much necessarily founded on a conception of same-sex relationships as somehow "less." "Perhaps they deserve the same rights as we do... but their relationships will never really have the same value that ours do, and the state should recognize this."

And that is exactly the idea being espoused when a different legal construct is created.

Not to mention the fact that, no matter how many people might say it, civil unions in this country are not "separate but equal." They are "separate and sorta kinda equal." Presumably, a state law saying, "Civil unions grant all the protections, etc. of marriage" would make the recognition and protections provided by that particular state the same. However, that one state is not the only government entity to recognize marriage.

And, by both treaty and traditional foreign policy, the US is not the only nation to recognize that marriage either. Civil unions, on the other hand, are generally recognized in one (or maybe now a few) states. There is no foreign policy impetus for any other nation to recognize them.

I agree with Fass. 'Civil Unions' are a legal form of discrimination. It's fine and dandy that homosexuals are given the same benefits as heterosexuals, but then again how fine and dandy is it that negroes are given their own negro schools?

Hmm?

It's about damned time.

As an interesting statistical note, african americans actualy tended to get a better quality of education in black only schools. After integration, a number of black only schools that were suddenly integrated also started dropping in number of graduations and in quality of education. Not saying that the two are nessisarly related, or that segregation was bad. . . only that black only and white only schools as an option tends to be a good thing for the students in them. But that's off subject.

Marriage is both a legal and a social phenomena. The legal phenomena has to be extended to any consenting adult couple under the law. The social phenomena is just that. . . a socially binding phenomena that has no legal standing. I can get married to six women at the same time, but the law only recognizes the last women you married and haven't divorced as your wife. It is wrong, and unconstitutional to deny the rights and privlages to homosexuals, but it's socialy destructive to try and legislate a new cultural norm. Remember, laws are influenced by society, society should not be influenced by laws.

I agree with Fass. 'Civil Unions' are a legal form of discrimination. It's fine and dandy that homosexuals are given the same benefits as heterosexuals, but then again how fine and dandy is it that negroes are given their own negro schools?

Hmm?

Yeah...It does seem homophobic (And somewhat absurd) to not call two gay people in a contract basically the same as marriage (As far as I know) married.

I agree with Fass. 'Civil Unions' are a legal form of discrimination. It's fine and dandy that homosexuals are given the same benefits as heterosexuals, but then again how fine and dandy is it that negroes are given their own negro schools?

Hmm?

I'm certainly not denying that civil unions fall into the separate but equal category--they do, and they are certainly not the best option. But they are better than the current "you have absolutely no rights" situation. And as I said pages and pages back, the people who think gays will be satisfied with this are just deluding themselves. There will be same-sex marriage in this country sooner rather than later.

I'm certainly not denying that civil unions fall into the separate but equal category--they do, and they are certainly not the best option.

No, they don't. Civil unions are "mostly equal". And pretending that they are actually equal will gain nothing in the fight for truly equal protection under the law.

But they are better than the current "you have absolutely no rights" situation. And as I said pages and pages back, the people who think gays will be satisfied with this are just deluding themselves. There will be same-sex marriage in this country sooner rather than later.

This I agree with.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/timeline.html

So yes. Plessy was indeed overturned. And people say that I do not know what I am talking about. :rolleyes:

Oh and more links saying that Brown overturned Plessy:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954brown.html



http://www.lib.odu.edu/exhibits/blackhistorymonth/brownvboard/

You really want to play dueling links? Alright....
One of the things about Brown that a lot of people misinterpret is exactly what it said. It did not overturn Plessy v. Ferguson

-Ted Shaw

Shaw, who has worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for almost 20 years, was lead counsel for the NAACP in the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case. He will take over as president and director-counsel of the leading civil rights organization on May 1. Managing Editor Glenn Cook interviewed Shaw in February.

From the American School Board Journal (http://www.asbj.com/BrownvBoard/brown11.html)

The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time.

Cited From Luther A. Huston, "High Court Bans School Segregation; 9-to-0 Decision Grants Time To Comply" (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html) (one would think if it abolished seperate but equal, segregation that existed under the grounds of seperate but equal would be abolished...yet it didn't).

I noted that Warren seemed very careful to obtain a unanimous decision, knowing how controversial the decision would be, and thus Brown did not overturn Plessy, but ruled on a more narrow basis.

From an interview (http://bothsides.humanbeams.com/bsn505bernstein-oconner.php) with former supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor

The perception by whites that the separate institutions were already equal also played a pivotal role in setting the stage for Plessy. Justice Henry Billings Brown would not coin the phrase “separate but equal.” It was used in the text of the Louisiana law that was being challenged. The line had become a part of the legal language in the wake of the Civil War Amendments. By stating a law provided separate but equal protection under the law, a state could argue that it was in full compliance with the Constitution and it is not clear that “separate but equal” is, in itself, unconstitutional. In 1954, when the Court handed down its decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, it did not overturn Plessy on the basis that “separate but equal” was illegal, but that the reality of “separate but equal” was a nation filled with unequal rights and facilities for blacks.


Plessy vs. Fergusson:A Case Misunderstood (http://history.jaybriar.com/plessy.html)
John Preston Briar, Vassar College Department of History

Brown expressly did not overturn Plessy, and it certainly did not articulate a successor constitutional test.

Professor Michael Dorf, Columbia University School of Law (http://michaeldorf.org/2006_12_01_archive.html)

The justices did not overturn Plessy v. Fergeson: instead, they abolished the separate-but-equal doctrine in public schools

American Legal History, Hall, Wiecek & Finkelman (http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives/Nov2005/msg00292.html)

The "fact" that "brown overturned plessy" is perhaps the most articulated legal fiction in the last 50 years in this nation. It did not, and, yes, I fear you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm certainly not denying that civil unions fall into the separate but equal category--they do, and they are certainly not the best option. But they are better than the current "you have absolutely no rights" situation. And as I said pages and pages back, the people who think gays will be satisfied with this are just deluding themselves. There will be same-sex marriage in this country sooner rather than later.

I agree. But what I wonder is whether civil unions will speed up that process or slow it down.

No, they don't. Civil unions are "mostly equal". And pretending that they are actually equal will gain nothing in the fight for truly equal protection under the law.
Sorry--I wasn't clear enough. I'm a firm believer that "separate but equal" is never equal, and I didn't mean to imply that it was.

I agree. But what I wonder is whether civil unions will speed up that process or slow it down.

Speaking only for myself, I think it will speed up the process, because the more that people get used to the idea that gay couples aren't destroying the universe, the more comfortable they are with same-sex marriage. Look at what's happened and how quickly it's happened in the northeast. Vermont passes its civil unions bill in 2001. Massachusetts has its gay marriage issue in 2004, and since then, you've had bills in Connecticut and New Hampshire, and more in the works if I remember correctly. Before Vermont, it had been something like 5 years since it had come up before in Hawaii which precipitated the passage of DOMA. So things are moving faster now, snowballing if you will, and I suspect that activists on both sides know it.

Civil union is the correct compromise, good for New Hampshire.

I agree. But what I wonder is whether civil unions will speed up that process or slow it down.

I think it will speed it up. The gay rights movement hits opposition when it talks about gay marriage, yet a great deal of that opposition lessens when it is refered to as "civil unions". I think what will happen, as it has happened in the states that have instituted it, is that people will see that it's not the end of the world and frankly nothing bad happened as a result of gays getting "married".

Speaking only for myself, I think it will speed up the process, because the more that people get used to the idea that gay couples aren't destroying the universe, the more comfortable they are with same-sex marriage. Look at what's happened and how quickly it's happened in the northeast. Vermont passes its civil unions bill in 2001. Massachusetts has its gay marriage issue in 2004, and since then, you've had bills in Connecticut and New Hampshire, and more in the works if I remember correctly. Before Vermont, it had been something like 5 years since it had come up before in Hawaii which precipitated the passage of DOMA. So things are moving faster now, snowballing if you will, and I suspect that activists on both sides know it.

You're also forgetting the ruling in NJ in 2006. ALso Oregon has passed legislature, waiting for the governor's signature who has said he'll sign it.

NY is beginning to make noise that they'll be tabling legislation to do the same. Once NY goes I think we'll see Maine follow, and DC is already expanding same sex rights. Then you'll have D.C., Maine, vermont, new jersey, new york, connecticut, masachussets and new hampshire, which is pretty much the enitre east coast, as well as development in California, Oregon and Washington State on the west coast, and it'll just start to squeeze in to the central and southern areas.

We'll probably see Nevada as the first southwest state to go, and, if I had to take a guess, Montana might go soon as well, considering the very libertarian nature of Montana these days.

Civil union is the correct compromise, good for New Hampshire.

I don't see civil unions as the correct compromise any more than I see letting black children go to black only schools as opposed to no schools at all was a "correct compromise".

It's still not far enough. It's still segregated. But segregated schools are better than no schools at all.

I still can not fathom how any intelligent human being could actually oppose gay marriage...or homoesexuality at all, because that's really what it boils down to. I really am SO sorry their tender sensibilities must be appeased by sliding slowly into 'civil unions' etc. Yes, poor them, being forced to adapt to the concept of human rights...we'd better get them used to it gradually so they don't blow a gasket the poor dears.

I'm with Nazz here. I do not embrace civil unions as the final solution, but as an intermediary step on the road to same sex marriages being the norm.

One rarely gets from point A to point Z in one step. That's not necessarily the ideal, but that seems to be how it works in American society.

So, I embrace each state that moves toward same sex marriages, even if civil unions must be established FIRST in order to gather momentum to take that final step. You all would have thought California would be the first state to establish legal same-sex marriages, but it was Massachusetts. California languishes far behind even states with civil unions right now. All we have is "domestic partnerships."

So, don't mistake my acceptance of civil unions as my being content with that step. I will not be content until all states AND the federal government take that final step along with a full establishment of LGBT persons as protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

So while all might not be rosy right now, it's a hell of a lot better than the 70's when I was a teenager.

You're also forgetting the ruling in NJ in 2006. ALso Oregon has passed legislature, waiting for the governor's signature who has said he'll sign it.

NY is beginning to make noise that they'll be tabling legislation to do the same. Once NY goes I think we'll see Maine follow, and DC is already expanding same sex rights. Then you'll have D.C., Maine, vermont, new jersey, new york, connecticut, masachussets and new hampshire, which is pretty much the enitre east coast, as well as development in California, Oregon and Washington State on the west coast, and it'll just start to squeeze in to the central and southern areas.

We'll probably see Nevada as the first southwest state to go, and, if I had to take a guess, Montana might go soon as well, considering the very libertarian nature of Montana these days.
California already has a domestic partnership law, which is sort of like a civil unions bill, and their legislature has passed a same-sex marriage bill in the past. I think Arnold vetoed it. I read yesterday in the NY Times that they're actually extending conjugal visit rights to same sex couples under the domestic partnership law now.

I'm certainly not denying that civil unions fall into the separate but equal category--they do, and they are certainly not the best option. But they are better than the current "you have absolutely no rights" situation. And as I said pages and pages back, the people who think gays will be satisfied with this are just deluding themselves. There will be same-sex marriage in this country sooner rather than later.

I agree that there will be and I will be applauding it. I do not agree with it but who am I to deny them that right?

California already has a domestic partnership law, which is sort of like a civil unions bill,

So does washington state, however neither give identical states rights, only some. As you note, there have been developments, and I think we'll see at least legally equivalent at a state issue civil unions in both states shortly.

*snip*

I am not going to get into a link war. It does not go well for either one of us and it makes us look childish. However, I will agree to disagree with you on this point for I feel that Brown v. Board did overturn Plessy even if you disagree with me.

So agree to disagree?

I am not going to get into a link war. It does not go well for either one of us and it makes us look childish. However, I will agree to disagree with you on this point for I feel that Brown v. Board did overturn Plessy even if you disagree with me.

So agree to disagree?

Unfortunatly such claims of "case X overturned case Y" are not opinions, they're not matters for reasonable people to both have equally valid standpoints. It is a factual statement. Either it is true, or it is not. Now, of course you have the right to believe something that is factually wrong. You can believe it, as much as you can believe the moon is made of cheese, and babies are delivered at night by a bird. I can't stop you from willingly believing something that is factually incorrect.

And I, knowing what is factually accurate, will disagree with you as long as you believe something untrue.

But you can certainly keep on believing it. Some would call that willful ignorance, but I can't stop you.

I am not going to get into a link war. It does not go well for either one of us and it makes us look childish. However, I will agree to disagree with you on this point for I feel that Brown v. Board did overturn Plessy even if you disagree with me.

So agree to disagree?

Agreeing to disagree requires there to be some actual question about the facts in dispute. There are none here--you are wrong. Period, end of discussion. Either admit it or stay deluded--those are the options.

*snip

Despite your words, I am glad that we can agree to disagree peacefully.

May peace be upon you.

I am not going to get into a link war. It does not go well for either one of us and it makes us look childish. However, I will agree to disagree with you on this point for I feel that Brown v. Board did overturn Plessy even if you disagree with me.

So agree to disagree?

See...this is what happens when people think they can be arm-chair lawyers.

It's...really rather sad.

Sorry--I wasn't clear enough. I'm a firm believer that "separate but equal" is never equal, and I didn't mean to imply that it was.

Ah. May have been my fault. I was slightly hungover until I got some food in me. =)

I agree. But what I wonder is whether civil unions will speed up that process or slow it down.

I think it depends on what people do with it. We could sit back and say, "Ok, well that's done," and wait for things to develop on their own. That, I think, would slow it down. Or, we can briefly celebrate, and then start pointing out the fact that it still isn't equal protection under the law and keep on doing so until it is fixed.

I don't see civil unions as the correct compromise any more than I see letting black children go to black only schools as opposed to no schools at all was a "correct compromise".

It's still not far enough. It's still segregated. But segregated schools are better than no schools at all.

As has been pointed out below, it is not easy to go from A to Z without intermediate steps.

For the time being, I think that civil union laws are the correct compromise, with a completely ideal solution still being far off.

At any rate though, it is specious to compare school segregation and whether or not the word "marriage" or "civil union" is used.

Segregated schools were a concrete reality that had very significant implications for people, the choice between those two words is not. It might hurt the feelings of a small number of people that "marriage" isn't written on their certificate, but there are bigger and more significant things to be worried about.

As long as the rights/benefits/&c are equivalent, the battle is 99% won. This isn't comparable to segregated schools.

Wait, whats the problem here. I thought that civil unions was the legal term given to any married couple, and marriage is the ceremony usually done by the church. I'm sure there are a few churches in New Hampshire that allow gay marriages, so whats the problem? You arn't proposing that you should force churches to marry same sex couples are you? Y'know, that'll be a problem, seperation of church and state etc...

As long as the rights/benefits/&c are equivalent, the battle is 99% won. This isn't comparable to segregated schools.

actually, to me, the battle is about 1% won, although I admit I don't have a stake in it. THe rights, in and of themselves, are not the most important thing. What matters is the recognition that gay couples are still people, still couples, still capable of the same feelings, emotions, compassion, comittment that straight couples are. Regardless of whether you give them the same rights, to make the intentional effort to seperate it serves no more than to reinforce the notion of "you are not like us", it is, to quote language from Brown, a "badge of inferiority".

And indeed, as noted in brown, even if segregated schools were by all measurable way identical, had the same resources, the same skill level of teachers, the same facilities, the same exact designs and the same exact quality of education, the very nature of segregation, in that it created in the minds of the black community a sense of being second class citizens, it was STILL barred.

Even if all else remained exactly the same, the very nature of discrimination, having been perpetuated through our history, continuing to be perpetuated by the very nature of seperation created a sense of ingrained inferiority that goes far beyond a few people getting their feelings hurt.

As the court in Brown noticed, even if all else remains the same, the nature of that seperation instills the feeling of "we'll treat you fairly and nicely, but never forget, you're not quite as good as us"

At any rate though, it is specious to compare school segregation and whether or not the word "marriage" or "civil union" is used.

Considering that there are legal issues outside of a single state's law that deal with the word "marriage", while not dealing with the word "civil union," that difference in words creates a clear legal difference between the two - on top of the obvious segregation issue.

As long as the rights/benefits/&c are equivalent, the battle is 99% won. This isn't comparable to segregated schools.

The rights/benefits/etc. will not be equivalent until (a) the federal government recognizes them, (b) other states recognize them, and (c) other countries recognize them. Without rewriting a great deal of law, treaties, and starting up new foreign policy, that won't happen until they are both part of the same legal construct.

Wait, whats the problem here. I thought that civil unions was the legal term given to any married couple, and marriage is the ceremony usually done by the church.

You thought wrong.

As has been pointed out below, it is not easy to go from A to Z without intermediate steps.

For the time being, I think that civil union laws are the correct compromise, with a completely ideal solution still being far off.

At any rate though, it is specious to compare school segregation and whether or not the word "marriage" or "civil union" is used.

Segregated schools were a concrete reality that had very significant implications for people, the choice between those two words is not. It might hurt the feelings of a small number of people that "marriage" isn't written on their certificate, but there are bigger and more significant things to be worried about.

As long as the rights/benefits/&c are equivalent, the battle is 99% won. This isn't comparable to segregated schools.
If rights/benefits/&c were equivalent, you might have a case, but they aren't. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized by the federal government or by most states and so the rights conferred under them are not transferable the way marriage rights are. And the federal benefits marriage automatically confers are enormous.

Wait, whats the problem here. I thought that civil unions was the legal term given to any married couple, and marriage is the ceremony usually done by the church. I'm sure there are a few churches in New Hampshire that allow gay marriages, so whats the problem? You arn't proposing that you should force churches to marry same sex couples are you? Y'know, that'll be a problem, seperation of church and state etc...

You thought wrong. Take a gander through the thread and you should be able to piece it together.