Hawaii Legalizes Same-Sex Civil Unions.

[CellarDweller]

Hawaii Legalizes Same-Sex Civil Unions.

By Nathan Koppel

It seems Neil Abercrombie is out to upstage the state’s native son, Barack Obama.

The prez, of course, announced yesterday that his administration would no longer defend the federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.

Abercrombie, meanwhile, yesterday signed into law a bill authorizing same-sex civil unions in Hawaii.

A little one-upsmanship in the Rainbow State? Okay, probably not, but it has been quite a flurry of activity in the last 24 hours.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/02/24/hawaii-legalizes-same-sex-civil-unions/

 

[Comfort Eagle]

Look I don't want to be a prick, but think maybe all this could go in one "Gov. Drops DOMA; States Adopt New Attitude" thread or something?

 

[PurpleStyle]

Finally looks like we're taking a step in the right direction. US is still pretty shitty, but it's a start.

 

[Slaver123]

A fairly close friend and her partner are about to tie the knot in NJ. Not sure what I think of same-sex marriage: it's certainly NOT a threat to the nuclear family or to our country (like so many of my fellow Conservatives seem to think) I'm NOT "up in arms" against it by any stretch- but I'm not sold on the idea of same-sex being true marriage either.

DON'T GET MAD at me: unlike the rest of the country I'm not militant about this issue at all. I think greater rights should be extended to "civil unions"- hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance etc- but "marriage" has always been based around sexual reproduction via combining the DNA of the 2 parents, which is impossible for same-sex couples (unaided by med science)

 

[Inverse]

Very happy about this. It's getting there, slowly~ steadily, I'm actually pretty impressed by how the world seems to be blooming the longer I live in it. I hope it lasts~

 

[Violetta]

DON'T GET MAD at me: unlike the rest of the country I'm not militant about this issue at all. I think greater rights should be extended to "civil unions"- hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance etc- but "marriage" has always been based around sexual reproduction via combining the DNA of the 2 parents, which is impossible for same-sex couples (unaided by med science)

I'll definitely argue that. One of my best friends got married not too long ago. Part of getting married meant he got to have sex with his wife, but neither of them want children. The first thing he did? Get a vasectomy. So, since their "marriage" isn't based on reproduction... they're not really married?

Here I thought marriage was about love and commitment. Maybe I'm still a naive kid after all...

 

[PurpleStyle]

You're both wrong. Marriage is about political and economical gain. Save your love, sex, and commitment for your personal concubines. Unless you're trying to produce a royal heir.

 

[Violetta]

... Ugh, not worth my time anymore.

 

[CellarDweller]

DON'T GET MAD at me: unlike the rest of the country I'm not militant about this issue at all. I think greater rights should be extended to "civil unions"- hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance etc- but "marriage" has always been based around sexual reproduction via combining the DNA of the 2 parents, which is impossible for same-sex couples (unaided by med science)

I'm not getting mad at you, but I do feel the need to point a few things out.

Marriage started as a way to show ownership. The man got to "own" the woman and even received a dowry for his trouble. The woman got his name and the right to now be subserviant to him. Traditional wedding vows have the man saying he will "love, honor, and cherish", while the woman says she will "love, honor, and obey".

As for "greater rights" being given to civil unions, unless they are the same exact rights that married people get, they are not the same. There are stories of companies that haven't extended rights to same-sex couples, and then the state okays "civil unions" and an employee will approach them stating that he/she is in a civil union with his/her partner, only to be told by the company that "our company only allows benefits coverage to spouses. Your partner is not your spouse because you're not legally married."

Since a few people have shared stories, here is one of mine.

My friend "Ross" was married to his ex-wife for a number of years, and they had a daughter. Not long after 2006, Ross decided to admit he was gay and divorced his wife. To her credit, she didn't prevent him from seeing his daughter on visitation nights and weekends.

Ross met "Joey" (can you tell what show is on now?) and they fell in love fast and hard. Ross and Joey moved into a home together and were starting a business together.

In July of 2010, Ross was killed in a freak accident. Joey planned (and paid for) the whole memorial service, and invited the ex-wife, Ross' daughter, and Ross' family. They gave him nothing.

Not long after, the ex-wife hired an attorney and took Joey to court on behalf of Ross' daughter (she's 12). The whole case the attorney built up was that Ross and Joey were never married, and therefor the daughter was the next of kin. The ex-wife got a ton of stuff that Joey had hoped to keep (mementos - nothing of real cash value), and even got the judge to tell Joey to hand over the matching wedding bands that Ross got for them.

Had Ross and Joey been able to be legally married, Joey would've been the next of kin, and this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Marriage started as a way to show ownership. The man got to "own" the woman and even received a dowry for his trouble. The woman got his name and the right to now be subserviant to him. Traditional wedding vows have the man saying he will "love, honor, and cherish", while the woman says she will "love, honor, and obey".

Unless the women poisoned said man's drink and then "disposed" of the body. Going for jaunts in the woods can be so dangerous after all. People get lost, go missing, it's just appalling. ^_~

Had Ross and Joey been able to be legally married, Joey would've been the next of kin, and this wouldn't have happened.

o_0...sounds pointless if nothing Ross had was worth anything mentionable. On a side note though, I wouldn't want to keep a child of my mistress from getting her inheritance but as you well pointed out (and as I pointed out above), there's a difference between inheritance and overkill. Tell me, did "Ross" have a life insurance policy with his daughter's name as the beneficiary? If so, that should have been enough for the wife as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Finally looks like we're taking a step in the right direction. US is still pretty shitty, but it's a start.

Unless the Christian Right takes their case to the supreme court. Then we're pretty much proper fucked.

 

[CellarDweller]

Tell me, did "Ross" have a life insurance policy with his daughter's name as the beneficiary? If so, that should have been enough for the wife as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, "Ross" made sure his daughter was taken care of. She took stuff of sentimental value to "Joey" to hurt him for being the one that Ross loved.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

That pretty lowdown and dirty. Yup. Yup. (nods)

 

[the_jimmy_james]

o_0...sounds pointless if nothing Ross had was worth anything mentionable. On a side note though, I wouldn't want to keep a child of my mistress from getting her inheritance but as you well pointed out (and as I pointed out above), there's a difference between inheritance and overkill. Tell me, did "Ross" have a life insurance policy with his daughter's name as the beneficiary? If so, that should have been enough for the wife as far as I'm concerned.

Enough? No, not really. See, some people are miserable fucks. They thrive on fucking people over and being generally douchey.

Likely the spiteful bitch was a whinefest because her boy liked another boy, so she decided to change her name to Ms. Cuntmeyer. This led her to wearing panties that were two sizes too small (to match her heart) and thus she thought some courts would help her out.

Of course, all you have to do to win in a court is say "Ohmagawd some kids!" Then juries would award you gallons of human blood if you asked for it.

Seriously, this whole debate just comes down to coalitions of miserable fucks wanting to piss on someone vs people who just want to fucking live.

What the miserable fucks can't understand is that social revolution happens. There's not a qualifier on it. It just does happen. Conservatives and Liberals be damned, it's not about them. It's not about Bibles or talking heads on Fox News. Hell... It's not even about Charlie Sheen.

It's about Liberty, the only thing that fucking matters.

Thank you.