The bigot says everyone is happy?
Bowser said:
The demise of your quest for ideological supremacy derived from religious ideology.
Separate but equal won't stand, as it is inherently unequal.
We fixed our state constitution and answered the question concerning gay marriage. Everybody in Oregon is happy. The gays get the official recognition they desired and can bind each other to a monogamous relationship.
Well, given that everyone was happy before the Civil Rights movement—after all, the blacks had their own schools, bathrooms, and water fountains, and whites didn't have to be in such close proximity with them—one wonders why the Supreme Court struck down the standard of "separate but equal".
To the other, no, not everybody's happy. Your fellow bigots are
still complaining, Bowser. As Jeff Alworth noted in 2005,
Last night, a committee in the Oregon House listened to testimony on their version of gay rights: reciprocal benefits. In this scheme, any two people who have a connection but can't marry are entitled to some of the rights of married couples (see text here). It is an alternative to SB 1000, which not only offers gay and lesbian couples all the "same privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities under state law" as married straight couples, but prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
For many of the Measure 36 crowd, this goes way too far. A supporter of the House bill, Oregon Family Council's Tootie Smith, thinks civil unions essentially break the law set by M36.
"Civil unions is basically gay marriage. And with the passage of Measure 36, the state of Oregon really we think said loud and clear that we think marriage should be between one man and one woman. Reciprocal benefits just doesn't single out one particular group of people based on a behavior characteristic."
According to OFC's talking points, SB 1000 threatens marriage in exactly the way gay marriages did. Worse, according to the group, the bill would essentially give gays and lesbians the special privileges reserved for straight couples: "SB 1000 simply adds same-sex civil unions to EVERY Oregon statute that mentions marriage. It basically undermines the institution." For OFC, the same rights means special rights.
The two bills aren't variations of the same things: they're polar opposites. The Senate bill seeks to honor the spirit of the Oregon Constitution's equal-protection clause by extending rights to all committed, loving couples. These aren't special rights; they're rights already available to most Oregonians. The House bill, on the other hand, seeks to limit rights to gays and lesbians. It would vastly limit the rights gay couples would receive, and worse, would self-consciously avoid acknowledging these relationships before the law.
(
Alworth)
Of course, the one thing I already know I can't expect from hatemongers like you, Bowser, is honesty or decency.
What benefits are they missing? My question is genuine because I honestly don't know.
If you don't know, why not? You're willing to say everyone is happy, but you don't know that for a fact, do you? What's that? Recognition? Bound monogamous relationships? How about equality? No wonder you don't know. You had no reason to look.
The answer is that part of it depends on the states. And in part it depends on the federal government.
But more than four months after New Jersey's civil union law went into effect, Ross, 46 and Cash, 54, are among the many same-sex couples severely disillusioned with their prospects for legal equality. Citing federal regulations that allow many employers to effectively ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits, the Fortune 500 company where Ross has worked as a computer specialist for 21 years denied the couple's request for joint coverage ....
.... Most vexing for gay couples in New Jersey is that they have little legal recourse. Smaller companies that buy private health insurance plans for their employees are compelled to offer them to same-sex couples under the state's civil union laws. But most legal experts agree that federal regulations give companies with self-funded insurance plans -- a group covering 55 percent of the country 105 million working-age employees -- the power to ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits.
And when companies choose to follow federal laws, they often cite the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman as a reason to deny coverage to same-sex couples. New Jersey officials estimate that almost 90 percent of the reports of noncompliance to date have been linked to companies covered by these federal laws ....
.... Experience has shown that further measures can persuade companies to provide benefits. California, for instance, passed a domestic partnership law in 1999. But after running into some resistance from corporations claiming to be protected by federal law, California passed follow-up legislation mandating that any company doing business with the state also guarantee domestic partnership coverage to same-sex couples.
That law compelled many large corporations such as Federal Express, which is not offering benefits to couples joined in civil unions in New Jersey, to do so in California, according to a company spokeswoman. In New Jersey, however, many couples have not been as lucky.
After Bruce Moskovitz, 54, and John Fellin, 59 -- who work at the same major pharmaceutical company in New Jersey -- registered their civil union on April 1, they were told by their employer that they could name each other as beneficiaries of their pensions. But while married spouses receive 50 percent of their deceased partner's corporate retirement pensions for life, the two men together for 24 years were informed that the their surviving partner would be granted similar payments for only 60 months.
(
Faiola)
There's your "equality", Bowser. And what a wonderful equality it is.
But when Tracy was giving birth to their son, Jake, five months ago, a hospital employee inquired whether she was “married, single, divorced or widowed.”
“I’m in a civil union,” she replied. When the employee checked “single,” Tracy protested. “I’m actually more married than single,” she said, leaving the employee flustered about how to proceed ....
.... Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry, and Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey have civil unions, while California and Oregon have domestic partnerships that provide similar benefits to civil unions.
Though such arrangements were created, often under court mandate, with a promise of treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, many gays and lesbians say they have not delivered and can never do so because separate institutions are inherently unequal. Many also resent being denied use of the word marriage, which they say carries intangible benefits, prestige and status.
Connecticut created civil unions in 2005, promising same-sex couples all the “rights, protections and responsibilities” the state bestows upon married couples, rather than the patchwork some municipalities had stitched together. The law also included a clause, inserted at the insistence of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, joining at least 40 states with similar language in their laws.
But eight same-sex couples pressed ahead with a constitutional challenge, arguing that they were entitled to marry the person of their choice and that nothing less would do ....
.... Civil unions require constant “haggling, litigation and explanation,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder of a New York-based advocacy group called Freedom to Marry. Being married, he said, means “you don’t have to fumble for documents. You don’t have to hire an attorney, and you don’t have to consult a dictionary. You’re married. You know what it means, and everyone else knows what it means”....
.... For Jean Csvihinka, 48, who works at a bank in Milford, getting a civil union meant paying tax on an additional $6,000 a year. Ms. Csvihinka said that adding her partner, Gina Bonfietti, 43, a self-employed piano technician, to her health insurance obligated her to pay a federal tax on the value of the additional coverage that married couples would not owe, and that since the civil union she has also had to pay tax on her daughters’ coverage even though the girls were on her plan, tax-free, before. She said she was told that “it’s a systems issue.”
Experts blame some of these problems on the disconnect between state taxes, which civil union couples can file jointly, and federal taxes, which they cannot because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman ....
(
Cowan)
Civil unions are inherently unequal. But hey, everyone's happy, right? Which is why the homophobes
and the homosexuals are complaining, right?
Have any more
lies to tell us, Bowser?
____________________
Notes:
Alworth, Jeff. "Civil Unions or Reciprocal Benefits?". BlueOregon.com. June 1, 2005. http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/06/civil_unions_or.html
Faiola, Anthony. "Civil Union Laws Don't Ensure Benefits". Washington Post. June 30, 2007; page A03. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html
Cowan, Alison Leigh. "Gay Couples Say Civil Unions Aren’t Enough". New York Times. March 17, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/nyregion/17samesex.html
