*Slow clap*

Differences from marriage
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences will remain until January 1, 2012. These differences include, in part:
Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]
Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]
California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]
Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][6][7] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[8]
In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [9]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.
Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference,[citation needed] and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed,[10] suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions".[11]
A 2010 UCLA study published in the journal Health Affairs suggests various inequities (including "Inequities in marriage laws") might have "implications for who bears the burden of health care costs." That study finds that men in same-sex domestic partnerships in California only 42% as likely to receive dependent coverage for their partners as their married peers, and that women in same-sex domestic partnerships in California are only 28% as likely to receive that coverage.[12][13]
[edit]Eligibility
A couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:[14]
Both persons have a common residence.
Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.
Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
Either of the following:
Both persons are members of the same sex.
The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.


Example of California domestic partnership certificate.
On October 9, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that will completely harmonize domestic partnership eligibility requirements with those of marriage, effective January 1, 2012.[15]
[edit]Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Unions
A substantially similar legal union lawfully contracted in another state will be recognized as a domestic partnership in California. For example, a civil union contracted in New Jersey would qualify as a domestic partnership in California.
A substantially similar legal union lawfully contracted in a foreign jurisdiction will be recognized as a domestic partnership in California. For example, a civil partnership in the United Kingdom or a civil union in Switzerland would qualify as a domestic partnership in California.
A substantially weaker legal union contracted in another state or foreign jurisdiction may not qualify as a domestic partnership in California. A domestic partnership in Maine would, in all likelihood, fail to qualify as a domestic partnership in California.

---

What you fail to understand is that gay marriage and civil unions are not the same, with just a the words changed. If you read the differences and etc..., you'll know that it's different. Especially by state, where civil unions have either less or more differences than marriage. California is slightly luckier than other states in the U.S. There's also the fact that heterosexual couples can participate in civil unions, however, homosexual couples cannot participate in heterosexual marriage.

Now, you may say that it's not discrimination, but you are wrong. To say that someone cannot do something because they are a homosexual is discrimination. The problem is not that the church does not recognize homosexual marriages, the problem is the law does not recognize homosexual marriage. I'm sure two gay people can have a marriage ceremony in a church, but in the end, it wouldn't be recognized by the law.

Now, let's say they would instate a law that says black people cannot get married to other black people, but they can get married to white people. At the same time, they would try to create some form of marriage, which is not exactly marriage, like a civil union is not exactly marriage, for blacks. Do you really think that would fly? If you cannnot discriminate against age, gender, race, sexual orientation, height, or anything else that a person does not have control over, by law of Discrimination, why is it alright to pick one out of those guidelines of what you cannot discriminate against, and say they cannot do something that everyone else in those categories can do? Tell me that.

Good sir i do believer you've made your point very well though out and very well backed up with info. Not only did you chose to use solid info to back up what you wish to state you also took into fact the emotional side of the argument and but it to a stand as solid info not many people can do with out sounding as if you are putting your own emotions before fact at the least you latterly gave one of the most perfect answers to this i have ever seen. So yes thank you for this and i will say i don't care about churches and getting married in there what i care about is what happens to my mate once i'm not there if he gets denied something that i left him only because we are not married, and good sir you have made my day.

I'm glad you enjoy how I gave my side.

I understand the emotional side of it, and in a perfect world it would be great if we could all just get along and truely be treated equally. But if progress is to be made, we have to shelve emotion. We can still BE emotional, but we have to act on reason and law, find ways to interpret and shape laws to help us.

And with much respect to Rai and his point, the fact is that I think he pulled that info off Wikiedia, based on the way the citations were made and the edit buttons imbedded. More than that, his information was location specific. Finally, in a way, it made my point. We need to change how civil unions work, because it will be easier to do that, and at the end of the day, you sir are right. It is more important for you to be able to take care of your mate, with the appropriate powers of attourney in times of illness and inheritance laws, than it is to be said that you are 'married'

Well... Rai... I'm sorry but I question whether you actually read what I wrote.

I didn't say that marriage and civil unions are the same, in fact, I differentiated between them, what I said was that we can't, and shouldn't try to make sweeping changes to the instiution of marriage, because the seperation between church and state exists and holy matrimony is a ceremony of a private organization. We can however, alter what a civil union is, and we should, to bring into line the rights and benefits otherwise joined couples have. My compromise was a state that is neither marriage, or a civil union, I flippantly used the term 'gay-riadge'.

To your second point, we aren't saying a man can't marry a man because he is homosexual, we are saying he can't marry a man because he is a man. I really did make this point, and it matters from a legal perspective. A man cannot marry a man whether he is homosexual or not, and because being homosexual is irrelevant, it's not discrimination from that standpoint. Your ability to marry a man is determined by your gender, and not your sexual orientation. And like I said before, the arguement may be made that it's discrimination on a gender specific basis, but the law has a healthy history of treating men and women differently. For example, men can't play ladies football, and or use the ladies washroom. And vice versa.

To your third paragraph, you are comparing apples to oranges. What currently cannot happen is a man cannot marry a man, it doesn't matter if he is black, muslim, mentally challenged, Obese or elderly. Hell, he can be all of the above. And the thing is, in the same area, all men are treated equally, they are equally unable to marry a man. The fact is that mostly (but not all, watch boston Legal) men entering into gay marriage would be homosexual, and that's where the misconception of discrimination enters from.

I understand the frustration of the community, of which I am a part of. But there's the world we live in, and the world we want. And as much as it is our duty to try to make the world we live in the world we want, we have to understand that at some point, concessions must be made for the sake of progress. Quite simply, if we tweak what a civil union is until it is synonymous with marriage, then the difference becomes moot, we are treated equally, even if labelled differently, and we haven't pissed half the world off. I call that a win.

Corso, I'm not sure you realize this, but marriage is not a religious activity. Marriage is the contract between two persons that binds them together in the eyes of a law. You do not have to get married in a church. You also do not have to be married to another person by a priest. The church has nothing to do with marriage, other than it's popular to get married in a church, by a priest.

Now, I can see what you mean when you say it's not discrimination because men are not allowed to marry other men, but does that really excuse the fact that homosexuals cannot get married? To use men being unable to play in ladies' football or men going into the ladies bathroom as things to compare with men not being able marry other men is ridiculous. Men cannot play in ladies' football because as men, we have more natural muscle than women. If the strongest man and the strongest woman were to engage in a physical brawl, just using strength, the man would most likely come out on top. The women in the ladies' football would get hurt. As for the bathroom situation, the reason is quite easy to guess. There are certain things that are alright when it comes to separating men and women, but not marriage? What valid reason is there to stop homosexuals from getting married to eachother? There really isn't one. Let's throw in a hypothetical... gay marriage is legal... If two people who are married are offended and think of their marriage as something less than it was when gay marriage was illegal, why do they have a right to be married?

You also want to go by the legal standpoint of marriage. Well, what about the vows "till death do us part?" Since marriage is a contract and you need a witness to become married, wouldn't that be a verbal contract between two people? Now, why is divorce legal, then? Why do people like Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphrees get to have a few week old marriage, then get a divorce/anullment while homosexuals can't get married at all? There are a lot of things that people can legally do that is much worse than gay marriage, that makes marriage as a whole look bad, that breaks the sanctity of marriage.

As for me comparing apples and oranges, I'm really not, only because race and sexual orientation fall under the categories of discrimination. It would be different if I had compared gay marriage and something completely irrelevant to the topic of discrimination.

As for your last paragraph, I disagree. The fact that people are not okay with gay marriage is what the problem is. To go "well, we've been given something else we can do that's like marriage, it's okay" is wrong, because there's still discrimination. Can you really give me and anyone else who questions your logic a valid reason why gay marriage should be against the law? Does it hurt anyone? No. Does it make people uncomfortable? No, not really. People can say they're uncomfortable with two people that are married to the same sex, but the only reason why it would bother them if they were forced to watch or attend the gay wedding.

There is no reason someone should be uncomfortable or offended by two men getting married to eachother, because it does not affect anyone else but those two people. It's something completely benefitial to those two people who are getting married and something that doesn't hurt anyone else. If a straight couple thinks it hurts their marriage because two gay people get married, then their marriage is crap, anyway, simply because they're the ones allowing their marriage to become something less than it should be, because of two other. Discrimination should not be okay in any form at all, whether it's against homosexuals, men, women, people of a specific race, etc... And there definitely should not be a statement that says "well, we can just have another form of marriage because we're not allowed with it."

Argh, so many words to respond to.

But the difference between our arguements is that yours is based on emotion and mine is based on logic. Marriage is a religious activity. You can't deny this, most religions have marriage, and because religions have no borders, people all over the world can be married. What is different within borders is how governments treat married couples, and regulate who gets married.

The reason this is such a hot topic is because people believe that in changing what marriage is, that they are changing what their religion is. And again, we should not do this. Law should not dictate who becomes the pope, or what is Kosher, or which direction you pray to Allah every morning.

We need to find a way to divorce marriage from religion, and the best way to do that is to call it something completely different, because anything else creates confusion and anger. You said it yourself "marriage is a contract" "marriage often happens in a church" this is an instance where we have unwisely blurred the seperation of church and state, and we should make that line clear.

Kim Kardashian is a twat, and shouldn't be used as an example for anything. I live in Canada, my neighbor three doors down had a gay marriage that lasted even less time, just because a famous person on one side bucked the system doesn't mean that no one on the other side does.

Can I give you a reason that gay marriage should be against the law? No. Because it isn't. Gay people getting married won't be fined or jailed. The marriage just isn't recognized. In history, women couldn't join fraternities, so they made soroities. They were being discriminated against more clearly that gay people in this situation, (Because again, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against here) and instead of fighting for entrance to fraternities, they made their own version.

And as for discrimination not being OK in any form at all: Not being able to drive until you're 16, or 18: Age discrimination. Not being able to live in certain gated communities until you're 65: Age discimination. Not being able to join Curves as a man: Gender discimination. Seniors discounts: Age discrimination. Did you know that Jews have a word for people who aren't Jewish? The word is Goyim. It translates to "thing". We have institutionalized discrimination based on age and gender everywhere.

The thing is, private organizations, of which the church is one, have the absolute right to discriminate. We have to be smart and take the church out of the equation. And quite simply, we should ask ourselves "What's important" is it IMPORTANT to have the word 'marriage'attached to the union of a man and a man, or is it IMPORTANT to be treated the same as a married couple, even if it's called something else.

Marriage is just a word. Man is a word, woman is a word. You will never litigate yourself as a man into being labelled a woman, nomatter how discriminatory you might feel it is.

Do your research. Marriage isn't a religious activity. You don't have to be Christian to get married. You can be agnostic or atheist, it doesn't matter what you are, except gay. I already told you, you don't have to be married in a church or by a priest to get married, so why do you continue to think it's a religious activity? If it was, the government wouldn't be able to stop two men or two women from being married to eachother. And when you say that my argument is based on emotion, it really isn't. The whole reason people don't want two men getting married is because it "destroys the meaning of marriage" which is emotional in itself. MY point of view is the logical point of view. It hurts no one but the two people involved, if their marriage goes sour. That's it. That's all there is to it. Let people whine, bitch, and complain. Who are they to rule other people's lives? And as I've stated before, Civil Union is NOT the same thing as marriage. Why? Because in some states, they don't get all the benefits people in a marriage get. So, you can say that gays should just be okay with Civil Union, but I'm not.

The fact is that you don't have to be Christian to be married, but the institution of marriage did start with religion. In almost every culture, there is a version of marriage, and until the last 50 or so years, these ceremonies were carried out almost exclusively by people of faith. Marriage is much the same as Christmas or Easter, in that they started out as religios ideas, and were carried out more mainstream, the thing is, marriage has been more legalized, and less bastardized than it's counterparts. Saying marriage is in no way a religious thing is ignorant. Do your research.

"If it was, the government wouldn't be able to stop two men or two women from being married to eachother." Sorry man, but it doesn't matter if you're talking about religion or the state, neither seems very inclined to legitimize gay couples as eing married. But of the two groups, government is more open to the idea, and quite simply, if it were cut and dry, and not an issue of faith, this issue would still be being discussed, but it would be much further ahead.

"The whole reason people don't want two men getting married is because it "destroys the meaning of marriage" which is emotional in itself." That reason is part of the discussion, but not the whole of it, with faiths as broad as the globe, you'll never get everyone to agree on something as hot as this. In my arguements, I never once referenced that.

"MY point of view is the logical point of view. It hurts no one but the two people involved, if their marriage goes sour." I think that "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I should be able to do anything I want" is a very emotional statement. But aside from that, while you might not agree with laws, or understand them, that doesn't mean that they aren't there for a reason. Because, whether you choose to believe it or not, marriage IS a religious ceremony, it should be protected from interference from the state. The state CANNOT and SHOULD not dictate FAITH to the FAITHFUL. You cannot legalize sacredness, you cannot abolish god. Whether you want to or not. Whether you agree with it or not. Which leads me to:

"Civil Union is NOT the same thing as marriage. Why? Because in some states, they don't get all the benefits people in a marriage get. So, you can say that gays should just be okay with Civil Union, but I'm not." I have never said that civil unions are the same as marriage. Quote me. Please. You've said this twice. You're making things up. What I've said is that civil unions are different, because they are purely legal entities. They have no basis in religion, and are therefore more malleable by law than religious ceremonies. I believe that we will be more successful trying to change the definition of civil union to get the same benefits as marriage than we will be bullying our way into marriage. And we'll get fewer people angry. AT THAT POINT, where we have CHANGED what a civil union is to match marriage in everything but name, we will have everything we wanted, but a label. And that's OK. because a label should be the absolute least important thing in this scenario. You'd have your spouse, all the rights of other couples, and if people look at you crosswise for being gay... They would have done that whether or not you were 'married.'

Why is a single word so important anyway? We label things. A house is a house, sometimes a home, sometimes a bungalo, but it will never be a tree. A dog is a dog, sometimes a hound, sometimes a canine, but never a cat. A boy, not a girl. A straight couple, not a gay couple. Why do we want to call ourselves something we aren't?

Look, I've given you many, many facts as well as my opinion on the matter. You continue to say that marriage is a religious practice, however, if it were, in the United States, there could be no law that states that two men cannot get married. It would go against the first amendment. With that being said, not all Christians believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I know many of those open-minded people.

I cannot debate with you any longer, though. We're not seeing through to eachother's opinion so we should just agree to disagree and whomever happens to read our back-and-fourth can decide for themselves, based on what we've both brought to the table.

From Dictionary.com

mar·riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

Pay special attentions to points 1, 2 and 3. 1 and 3 especially, where they refer to marriage as being both a legal and religious entity. But also 2 where it refers to marriage as being synonymous with matrimony. It's both. There's no way you can say marriage doesn't have religious roots, and is not currently, at least partially religious. The definition of Marriage includes religion.

Being shown proof and choosing to ignore it is ignorant. The word ignorant derives from ïgnoring the truth".

Just because you say things, doesn't make them true.

But you're right, we're not going to see eye to eye, and just as you made a parting jab in your last, (and final?) post, I've left one. Call it food for thought. I'm fine with letting the court of public opinion read the above.

Double post, my bad.

Y'know.... Sometimes I hear people talk about the gay rights movement in the same terms as The Emancipation or The Sufferage... Words like Persecution and Segregation... And I have to tilt my head and get that meme face "Trying to decide if serious."

We were always allowed to vote. We were never slaves because we were gay. We were never treated as property, or allowed to be beaten by our spouses as a matter of law. What we aren't allowed to do is file taxes as a couple. Persecution. Oppressive discrimination. Get a grip.

To actually answer you though... So what?

Do I agree that it would be wonderful if tomorrow gay marriage was accepted from sea to sea by the unanimous consent of every man, woman and child in the country? Absolutely. I just think it's very unlikely. I deal in realities. Reality sucks a little bit. And the fact is, with the way the laws are written, and the attitudes of the people in place, voted and otherwise, I really think that the best way to come to a good solution, not a perfect solution, but a really darn good one, is to accept that the people who have a say in who gets married doesn't want that term applied to same sex unions, and therefore to say "well eff you buddy" and find a way to get what you want using any other term. I think this is much more likely.

I'm not so much arguing against gay marriage as I am understanding why we won't get it anytime soon, and in the meantime, gay couples aren't receiving the benefits that straight couples are. And if we approach the situation rationally, our question shouldn't be "How do we get married?" It should be "How do we get those benefits?"

Because in the end, what is important? The word marriage? Or your spouse, your happiness, and your rights?