I'd like jrd to respond to this.

Why isn't "civil union" or "domestic partnership" acceptable?  Why does it have to be "marriage"?

Right now, civil unions are not equal in the eyes of the law.  This isn't even a case of separate but equal. Look at New Jersey.  They passed a civil unions law.  But still, 1 in 7 civil union couples in New Jersey don't have their rights recognized by their employers.  If the law was written in a way that civil unions were literally exactly the same as marriages in the eyes of the law, I'd be ok with it.  At that point, marriage would be a religion only label and everyone else would just have a civil union.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I will if you agree to answer one question from me.

After I respond to you, I will ask you a question titled "Question for Tec."  It will be yes or no.  Do you agree to answer that question?

Sure.  Fire away.

Question for Tec:

If you had to go to court and argue against same sex marriage, do you think it's likely that you would win with a "some religious people consider it immoral" argument?

(Assume we found the perfect, non-biased judge)

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 5:56:00 PM (view original):

I'd like jrd to respond to this.

Why isn't "civil union" or "domestic partnership" acceptable?  Why does it have to be "marriage"?

Right now, civil unions are not equal in the eyes of the law.  This isn't even a case of separate but equal. Look at New Jersey.  They passed a civil unions law.  But still, 1 in 7 civil union couples in New Jersey don't have their rights recognized by their employers.  If the law was written in a way that civil unions were literally exactly the same as marriages in the eyes of the law, I'd be ok with it.  At that point, marriage would be a religion only label and everyone else would just have a civil union.

Just because some employers in NJ are flouting a LAW (I'm taking your word for it), doesn't mean that we should make it a national LAW.  My guess is that the same pigheaded individuals that don't recognize civil union couples won't recognize gay marriage.

If it's the LAW, why isn't anyone arresting them?

I don't know. Why are you so angry?  I said that civil unions would be ok with me if they really were legally identical to marriage.  But they aren't.  So marriage is the best option right now for same sex couples.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 7:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't know. Why are you so angry?  I said that civil unions would be ok with me if they really were legally identical to marriage.  But they aren't.  So marriage is the best option right now for same sex couples.

I'm asking you.  How are they different?  Gay couples get survivorship rights, insurance rights, visitation rights.  I bet you don't even know.

Civil unions/domestic partnerships aren't even available in all states.  North Carolina just passed a law banning all civil unions (including opposite sex partnerships).

California has the most comprehensive domestic partnership law, as close to marriage as you can get as a same sex couple without actually being married.  There are still problems with dependent benefits, health care, etc.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are formed.  They carry no weight at the federal level (taxes, immigration, estate planning, etc) and dissolving a civil union can be much more complicated than a divorce (Vermont requires you to live in Vermont for a year before the union can be dissolved).

Right now, a civil union isn't the same legally as marriage.

If the government wants to get out of marriage completely, I'm fine with that.  Civil unions for everyone and marriage for people who want to go to church.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 7:25:00 PM (view original):
Civil unions/domestic partnerships aren't even available in all states.  North Carolina just passed a law banning all civil unions (including opposite sex partnerships).

California has the most comprehensive domestic partnership law, as close to marriage as you can get as a same sex couple without actually being married.  There are still problems with dependent benefits, health care, etc.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are formed.  They carry no weight at the federal level (taxes, immigration, estate planning, etc) and dissolving a civil union can be much more complicated than a divorce (Vermont requires you to live in Vermont for a year before the union can be dissolved).

Right now, a civil union isn't the same legally as marriage.

If the government wants to get out of marriage completely, I'm fine with that.  Civil unions for everyone and marriage for people who want to go to church.

Then don't live in those states.  That's your right.  Just as it is the right of the states (and those that live in the state) to determine the definitions of "marriage" and "civil unions".

If you're really interested in learning more about same-sex marriage laws and how they affect companies, you might want to check out a webinar from the "Benefits Institute".  Not quite sure how on got on their mailing list, but coincidentally, I got this email from them today:

Offering benefits to same-sex partners can be very confusing. On the one hand, same-sex marriage is legal under state law in seven states and in Washington, D.C. Many other states have legalized domestic partnerships and civil unions, which are intended to provide the same rights of marriage under state law. On the other hand, many states have passed laws or state constitutional amendments banning such marriages. Complicating things, federal law (the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA) defines marriage for all purposes of federal law as between one man and one woman. This has significant legal and tax consequences for employers that offer benefits under plans governed by federal law.

 

These recent developments can be confusing for employers that are trying to determine how to deal with retirement benefits, spousal benefits, and welfare benefits for employees with same-gender partners. Employers facing such situations have to evaluate their benefit plan documents, HR policies, and administrative procedures in light of state and local laws and court cases in order to know how to respond. This live audio conference will provide benefit plan sponsors and administrators with the information they need to administer their benefit plans in accordance with applicable laws and will discuss best practices for offering benefits to civil union partners and other same-sex partners.

Key Agenda Points

• Recent Same-Sex Relationship Legal Developments
• Federal Taxation of Benefits Provided to Same-Sex Partners
• Best Practices/Tips for Offering Same-Sex Partner Benefits

Who Should Attend

This live audio conference is designed for human resource managers, benefits administrators, payroll managers, accountants, controllers, CFOs, finance directors, presidents, vice presidents, business managers, insurance professionals and attorneys.

Audio Conference Details

June 6, 2012 | 1pm ET (12pm CT, 11am MT, 10am PT)
90 minutes including live Q&A
?

OK.  That looks to me like civil unions still do not have the exact same legal benefits as marriage.

I'm not a big fan of making someone move to another state just so they can be married (or the marriage equivalent) to the person they love.  Especially since Federal law doesn't recognize same sex marriages/civil unions.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I will if you agree to answer one question from me.

After I respond to you, I will ask you a question titled "Question for Tec."  It will be yes or no.  Do you agree to answer that question?

Sure.  Fire away.

Question for Tec:

If you had to go to court and argue against same sex marriage, do you think it's likely that you would win with a "some religious people consider it immoral" argument?

(Assume we found the perfect, non-biased judge)

That's not my argument, so I wouldn't attempt to make it in court.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 8:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I will if you agree to answer one question from me.

After I respond to you, I will ask you a question titled "Question for Tec."  It will be yes or no.  Do you agree to answer that question?

Sure.  Fire away.

Question for Tec:

If you had to go to court and argue against same sex marriage, do you think it's likely that you would win with a "some religious people consider it immoral" argument?

(Assume we found the perfect, non-biased judge)

That's not my argument, so I wouldn't attempt to make it in court.

I'm not asking if you would make it in court. I'm asking if you think you would win with it. Yes or no.

That's an irrelevant question.  I wouldn't be making somebody else's argument in court.  Plus, I'm not a lawyer.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 7:53:00 PM (view original):
OK.  That looks to me like civil unions still do not have the exact same legal benefits as marriage.

I'm not a big fan of making someone move to another state just so they can be married (or the marriage equivalent) to the person they love.  Especially since Federal law doesn't recognize same sex marriages/civil unions.

Wow, did you completely miss the point?  This shows that HR people are bending over backwards (pun intended) to make sure that same sex unions get the same benefits as married couples. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 9:28:00 PM (view original):
That's an irrelevant question.  I wouldn't be making somebody else's argument in court.  Plus, I'm not a lawyer.

Weak. I directly answered the question you asked and now you are avoiding a simple yes or no question that you agreed to answer.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 9:28:00 PM (view original):
That's an irrelevant question.  I wouldn't be making somebody else's argument in court.  Plus, I'm not a lawyer.

Weak. I directly answered the question you asked and now you are avoiding a simple yes or no question that you agreed to answer.

Bullshit.

My opposition to same-sex marriage is not on the grounds of religion or morality.  You're asking me if I could win in court making that argument.  I can not and would not argue a point that isn't mine.

So your answer is no?