Do you consider New Jersey civil unions to be a victory for gays and lesbians?

[DuaneBidoux]

Earlier I was on this forum and came under the impression that most people here believed that civil unions were no substitute for marriage so here's my question: is New Jersey a victory or is it a slap in the face?

I can't help but be happy for the people who will now have equal legal rights as other people, but perhaps this is an uniformed reaction.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. It's a victory, but it still says that gays are 2nd class in NJ. You've already asked this BTW.

Seperate but equal is not equal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=44437
You had quite the flamewar in this forum about it.

[LostinVA]

10. Yup, I'm wondering why the OP felt the need to ask this -- AGAIN

[DuaneBidoux]

48. Is this hostility? I don't recall asking anything about a specific ruling on civil unions in a...

specific state and reaction to it.

Not trying to be defensive but feeling a bit of hostility to what was a specfic question about a specific ruling.

[LostinVA]

53. You posted the same basic question November 16, 2006

And have posted it again.

You also started another flamefest thread around the same time.

Maybe DU GBLTers are kinda tired of this, especially when it occurs in the GLBT Forum.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

57. It was the exact same question, just not framed about the NJ ruling.

[LostinVA]

59. Although it happened after the NJ ruling and during lots of GD threads

About this very thing. So, I don't think I'm off base inferring that the OP is the same fucking thing as in November.

[DuaneBidoux]

69. If you do this with friends I'd love to think what you would do to enemies.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

72. She treats her friends quite nicely. Take that for what you will.

[JackBeck]

2. It's a partial victory.

While on a state level, my SO and I will be able to enjoy equal treatment under laws that govern sex discordant couples, separate in name is never equal.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I'm not sure I really get it --

if you have all the equal rights, there is nothing to keep you from saying you are married. You can even have a church ceremony, and the minister can say you are married. Isn't it, at this point, just semantics?

Now, I do realize that on the federal level you don't have the equal rights - filing joint tax returns, etc. - so this is just a partial victory, but if the state guarantees your rights how is that not equality on the state level?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Legally, you are not married. Straight people are married in the eyes of the law.

Gay people have unions. Yes, we can call it what we want, but legally we are 2nd class.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. "Legally" is meaningless. If you have the same legal rights

then you are legally equal - regardless of what it's called. The "seperate but equal" argument doesn't fit because there was open discrimination under that label where access to facilities and quality of education was specifically NOT equal. If gays are shunted off to separate schools and separate hospitals, THAT is separate.

Having been married twice, I promise you "marriage" is just a word. If you have the rights, and share the responsibilities, you are married. Not having the rights, and not wanting the responsibilities means you are not married, even if you have the blessing of the State and the Pope.

"Marriage" is just a word, and after a few years of legal civil unions everybody will call it marriage anyway, just because it is easier to say.

My personal opinion is that NOBODY should be "married" by the state - it intrudes into the realm of religion. All the state should do is acknowledge unions, then the participants can go on the the church or temple of their choice for a marriage ceremony. I used to work in a county court and was asked to witness at a couple of civil ceremonies where couples were married by the judge - and the judge ended saying the typical "who God has brought together let no man put asunder" and I thought -- the State has NO BUSINESS talking for God. It's a violation of the constitution. What you insist on is that the state violate the constitution on your behalf.

If you can show me how a civil union discriminates against you in any legal way - other than the semantics of the word 'marriage' - I will happily agree with you. But IMO, saying that a civil union is not a marriage just because it doesn't use the word marriage is like saying the Vietnam War was not a war because we called it a police action. There is an emperical reality that stands above just words.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. a lot of federal rights are associated in marriage.

nj allows only the rights on a civil basis.

[sui generis]

90. isn't it funny how that argument is always greeted with silence?

it's not the same. The answer is, yes it's a step forward, but it may be a step forward in the wrong direction. If it's not recognized by the government and in all fifty states, then it's clearly a second class arrangement, no matter what they call it.

:hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

18. Well, marriage is a both a civil and religious institution in this country.

That's the way our laws are written.

And having marriage for straight people and civil unions for gay people is discrimination. They are SEPERATE. Unless the state has marriage for both straights and gays or civil unions for both straights and gays, it is discriminatory.

End of story.

[LostinVA]

19. Because it IS a two-tiered system, Whether or not you want to admit it

"Semantics"? When a word has certain societal and legal meanings, you bet I take the word seriously. This IS indeed "separate but equal." There's no way for it NOT to be.

And, since you're not gay, and have been married twice, why do you feel you have a right whether or not to tell me I'm wrong to feel slighted by this?

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Again, show me how this results in discrimination against you

when 'civil union' guarantees all the rights of 'marriage'.

A rose by any other name.

As for your "feelings", feelings are not real. There is an empirical, physical reality, and then there is how someone feels about that reality. The feelings have no impact on the reality. You can feel slighted, but you still have all the rights of marriage. Just not the word. Railing against legal civil unions for the lack of that word undermines what an achievement that is. When my sister's partner went into the hospital a few months ago she was not allowed to visit because she wasn't "family". After their committment ceremony in May, that will not change. Not in this state. And that is abominable. Maybe that will change, but I'm not holding my breath -- NC may not be the buckle on the bible belt, but it's certainly no more than a couple notches away.

"...a word has certain societal and legal meanings..."

Societal -- as I said before, there are those who will never think of you as married even with the full blessing of the State and the Pope; for all the others, you can say "we were married in a civil union ceremony" and they will accept that.

Legal -- as I said before, if you have all the legal rights, what is the problem? Legal doesn't care if you call it 'marriage' or 'civil union' - legal cares if you have rights of inheritance, if you get insurance coverage as a spouse, if you cannot be forced to testify against your partner in a court of law, and all the other legal ramifications of marriage. If you are granted one jot less in legal rights than a straight couple, then it is discriminatory. If not, what are you complaining about?

As for my marital history, it simply gives me the right as a person to be wary of the romantic illusion of 'marriage'. You have the right to feel any way you like, but as I said above, feelings are not reality. Reality is the law on the books that acknowledges your right to being treated equally under the law.

[sniffa]

21. DOMAsayswhat?

Let us know how your 3rd or however many civiL unions you end up getting, goes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. I love it when they come into the GLBT forum just to say our feelings and rights don't matter.

It's so much cozier and intimate when we get spat on in here than when it happens in GD.

[sniffa]

24. mmmm, intimacy

it's ok in some respects... we now have a green Light to shit aLL over him and his feeLings... and marriages.

jeez! what's wrong with straight peopLe? they can't even hoLd down a hoLy sacrament properLy.

[ThomCat]

25. Yes, especially when they come to

"make a point" and not actually to listen or learn anything. Yes, we need him to explain things to us. We couldn't possibly know what separate but equal means in the context of our own lives.
:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Who's spitting?

Jesus, I'm talking about rights and you're talking about feelings. I only wish that my sister enjoyed the rights in NC that gays in NJ have. I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, at least as much as I can bring myself to support any marriage, and I just don't see why gays are disparaging the terrific accomplishment of securing legal equality in NJ. So it's not called 'marriage'. I don't understand the hang up on that word. If you have all the rights, privildges and responsibilities of marriage, it IS marriage.

Granted, it won't be truely equal until it is recognised nationwide, and that will require a repeal of DOMA, but that doesn't alter the fact that now, in NJ, gays are getting married.

All I've been asking is for an explanation of why the word 'marriage' should mean so much. All I get is emotional reactions. It's like trying to talk to my (ex)wives.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

46. We have a LEGAL RIGHT to have a civil union. We do not have a LEGAL right to get MARRIED.

I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that seperate but equal is not equal. It wasn't equal for the blacks and it's not equal for gays.

And you, as a heterosexual, do not get to tell gay people what they are allowed to "get hung up on."

Gays aren't disparaging what we have. We're grateful for what we have, but IT IS NOT EQUAL.

Perhaps, if you cared more about feelings and emotional reactions, you'd have a wife, not ex-wives, because like it or not, feelings matter.

[DuaneBidoux]

51. This is my post. I don't care what "their" hang up is. It is. That is enough.

What really bugs the shit out of me is this thread now has absolutely nothing to do with my original but fairly simple question:

Can we feel good about this. I am not gay, but damn I (not necessarily you) do feel good for the specific individuals (you know, the ones in pictures we saw lining up right after the ruling).

As an overall principle maybe it is (and apparently for most people here is) far short of what we should be shooting for. I accept that. I don't give a damn why you feel that way.
The fact that you do outlines my actions in the upcoming conflicts.

[LostinVA]

52. You asked this same damned OP months ago

Are you holding for a different answer?

WE ARE happy for this. Jesus Christ.

[NMMNG]

62. Why are you asking *us* why the word "marriage" means so much?

How about you ask the bigoted whackjobs why the word marriage means so much that in the rare instances that they'll let us have some form of unions they refuse to let them be called marriages?

[LostinVA]

78. Best answer on this thread n/t

[DuaneBidoux]

50. I hope that is not what you think that I (the poster) did.

I actually recognize quite strongly that for most of the people on this forum they have made it abundently clear that the term (and any associated rights written and otherwise) ARE important. Thus that is the position I will take.

My post was perhaps a little more nuanced than is usually found on this forum (and indeed perhas on DU generally).

Can we call this (this specific instance in NJ) progress? Can we call it a step forward? If so, should we feel good about it? Should we attempt to move other states in this direction that may have no hope of ever having marriage? These are the kinds of questions I ask. And they are not unique to GLBT rights. I feel the same questions and the subtle tradeoffs needed in ecological rights, labor rights, rights to healthcare (for example...in California there is now a law that will cover all people for health. Is this a victory? I'll bet anything it is not what most progressives had in mind...but, it IS covering many people not before covered. Is this progress?)

These are questions of realpolitik. They ARE NOT attempts to be provocative or hateful.

I know this...I feel without a doubt that our country under the control of progressives for the next century to come will make us a better country. I also know that the way to power is not always easy or fair. I want power. I want it to do good. Don't necessarily mistake someone working for the understandings of the nuts and bolts of grabbing and holding power to do good as being someonw against your interest.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. It was actually a general statement, basically aimed at those who believe seperate but equal is okay

Of course, you are guilty of it in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=46329
A thread in which your son uses homophobic epithets and you don't want to stop him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=46142
A thread in which you state lesbians don't have "sophisticated problems."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=44437
And here's your last thread on this topic in the GLBT forum, which turned into quite the flamewar. I'm not sure why you are revisiting it.

[LostinVA]

56. Why, gosh, more links and facts

Haruka, whatever good are those nasty things?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

58. They fuck up the truthiness some believe. That's for damned sure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. As a matter of fact, in the unlikely event that I ever do enter into a

3rd union it will be a civil union - I have become somewhat more hardened in my atheism in the past 15 years, and will not tolerate any minister or judge doing god talk over me.

But being the misanthrope I am, it is, as I said, highly unlikely in any event.

[sniffa]

29. DOMAsayswhat?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

31. Nope, it would be a civil MARRIAGE, according to US law, since presumably your 3rd MARRIAGE would be

to a member of the opposite sex.

Sure you could call it a civil union, but it would be a marriage.

[LostinVA]

79. Yup

[JackBeck]

23. It's "double taxation."

Not only would we have to pay for a civil union license, if we were to find a church to marry us, we would then have to pay for the marriage license.

The same thing happened during the issue of gay adoption. In the past, one father would have to go to court, adopt the child, and then the second father would have to do the same thing. The NJ Supreme Court found this unconstitutional, and was the first state in the country to allow a same-sex couple to jointly adopt a child with one visit to the courthouse.

On edit: Not to mention the fact that a civil union license costs more than a marriage license, which, to me, is discrimination.

[LostinVA]

35. I didn't know it cost more!

That seems like that goes against the NJ law.

[JackBeck]

37. I stand corrected.

But when we got our DP a few months ago, that was $10 more than a marriage license. We both were shocked. Maybe the new law updated the fees as well, because I just checked and all 3 (DP, SU, M) were $28.00

[Midlodemocrat]

26. Because it's not the same. And, there is no reason for it not to be the same.

I'm married. I had a beautiful church wedding almost 18 years ago. I have three beautiful children. Why should my GLBT friends have to 'settle' for a civil ceremony? Why can't they have the whole enchilada?

Of course, some churches will never agree to marry gays. That doesn't mean the state should feel the same way. There is no viable, logical reason on the planet to prevent full and completely equal rights for the GLBT community. None. Nada. Zilch.

Gay rights are human rights. Gays should have all the same rights and protections that I do as a straight, married woman. There is no excuse for them to be relegated to second class standing because it offends someone. Fuck that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Who says that a civil ceremony has to be in a dingy office with

bad flourescent lights? There's nothing stopping them from having a big chuch ceremony with all the trappings. In a couple months my sister and her partner will have a beautiful ceremony presided over by their UU minister - and when it is over they will have no legal rights at all. None. Not in this state.

It is the rights that is important, not the trivial trappings or what you call it, and I say good on NJ for acknowledging that.

Now, OTOH, I notice in another posting that there ARE areas of difference - that the civil union license costs more than a marriage license. That IS wrong, and it IS discriminatory. No doubt, it will be soon corrected, by a suit in court if nothing else. It is not to be tolerated. And very likely there will be other such overlooked details which do not live up to full equality, just as in some locales there have been, and still may be, laws that allow, for instance, housing discrimination against unmarried or mixed race couples. The point is, the law is in place which can be used to address these issues as they come up.

[swimboy]

30. So you've decided civil unions is good enough for us, unless we can prove to you otherwise

and feelings are not real.

Sorry. I'm not sure exactly how your sister felt when she was barred from visiting her partner in the hospital, but I REALLY REALLY hope you pretended that her feelings were real, at least to her face.

You have access to marriage and defy us to prove to you our case for wanting that access? Sorry, you've already stated that "legally" is meaningless and that "feelings" are not real. I'm not sure how to couch my arguments for you.

I'll say this much. Marriage is a legally recognized form, universally. Civil unions are being mapped out and defined as a "separate" institution. The simplest thing for anyone unopposed to equal rights to desire is that all would have access to the existing legal form, not to invent a new one to prevent that access.

Ask someone in New Jersey or even Massachussetts whose partner is from another country if they think this patchwork of civil unions works for them. If two couples go to a City Hall in New Jersey and one couple gets a civil marriage and the other gets a civil union (based solely on which set of sexual equipment they profess to have)they do not all four have the same rights. It is limited, it is unequal, it is progress, but it is a consolation prize and it is not enough.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. Exactly, swimboy.

The term marriage is universally recognized as the joining of one man and one woman (at least at this point). Why not extend it to mean the same thing to the GLBT community? It's joining people together who LOVE each other. :banghead:

I simply cannot understand the rationale for throwing the GLBT community under the bus YET AGAIN.

I don't say I'm civil unioned, I'm MARRIED and the GLBT community deserves exactly the same thing I have. Or the right to reject it.

Fer cryin' out loud, it's not like the heterosexuals in this country haven't completely fucked up the idea of marriage with divorce, adultery, you name it. I challenge those who are against gay marriage to show me how the GLBT community could fuck it up any worse.

[swimboy]

45. Thanks, midlo.

:thumbsup:

[IntravenousDemilo]

77. It's not really so much a question of "feelings", but of justice.

And justice, like it or not, is very real. The word "marriage" is the pound of flesh that the straight community owes the gay community as partial compensation for the many years, decades, centuries of gaybashing in the form of discrimination, ostracism, disownings, beatings, and murders. So the louder straight people scream and wail when we use the word in the context of "equal marriage", the longer they refuse to pay this small forfeit, and the more passionately pigheaded they are about denying us our basic rights as equal citizens, the more determinedly we will twist the knife. It's only natural.

Would one suggest that gay people shouldn't use the same public toilets as straight people, even if both facilities are equally well appointed, while not allowing gays to call them washrooms? Should we drink from separate water fountains that we have to call something other than water fountains? Perhaps we should sit in a different section of the bus. I mean, we'll all be able to do our business even if we have to call washrooms "Fred", we'll slake our thirst whether the water comes from a fountain or a "saxophone", and whether we sit in the front or the back of the bus, we'll all get where we're going at the same time. But you know what? It's just not the same thing.

Luckily, up here in Canada, marriage is now defined as the union of two people, period, but it was a long and noisy fight. Marriage is a civil legal construct more than a religious one. You can get "married" in a church as much as you want, but you're not going to be legally wed unless you get a licence. The church part is just window-dressing.

For the life of me, I just don't understand why the US can't suck it up, follow Canada's lead, and do what we do for once. We're not idiots -- we know what we're about, and you'll be better off, believe me.

[LostinVA]

80. Very, very nice post -- thanks

[moose65]

81. Thanks for that post!

And I, too, wish that we would follow Canada's lead. I think that Canada will help us in the long run, especially in states on the border. More and more people will see that gay marriage hasn't destroyed Canada, and that can only help in our struggles here in the good ole USA.

[JackBeck]

9. Like I said,

separate is not equal.

[LostinVA]

11. Because it's not being called the same thing

Thus, it is not the same category of "union" -- it just has the same rights under State law. Separate but equal isn't equal -- and it is unconstitutional. It is very much a cultural/respect thing.

Per what Haruka has told me, there's probably support there to change the law to read "marriage." I hope they do that.

[swimboy]

32. You don't have to "get it". You've already got it.

Just please, please support us in our efforts to get it.

[terrya]

89. Correct answer

Something is better than nothing. But it's still not what you deserve. Civil unions are seperate but equal.

[ThomCat]

3. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not actual equal rights

so we're far from done.

The rights granted by civil union only apply to rights granted or recognized by the state. It does not include any rights granted to married people by the federal government, and the rights granted by the state are not recognized outside of the state. Also, I'm sure we will find out through court cases exactly how equal civil union is even within the state.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Yes and No.

Yes, because these couples will be given recognition in that they can not be shut out of their partner's life like making medical decisions (let alone being allowed to visit them in the hospital), getting benefits, filing joint tax returns, etc.

No, because they are not given the social and societal recognition accorded to the married heterosexual couples. They are still viewed as separate and apart and somehow "not as good" as their heterosexual counterparts.

[LostinVA]

12. Exactly!

[Midlodemocrat]

28. You nailed it.

[moose65]

82. you're correct!

and as I've said many times, if marriage and civil unions really are the "same," then why do we need two different words to name them? Calling them different names MAKES them different, doesn't it?

[SteppingRazor]

5. I think this is just a fairly weak stepping stone.

Civil unions are the very definition of inequality. The only reason I can think of for their existence is that society at large considers gay love to be somehow lesser than straight love.

Unfortunately, I think this is a lengthy process we'll have to go through. Eventually, civil unions will be the norm. Then, when it's obvious that they're just "seperate but equal" claptrap, gay marriage will become the norm. But it's going to take a very long time. Change never happens overnight.

Caveat emptor: I'm a straight man, so my opinion could mean little here. :hi:

[LostinVA]

13. At least the NJ law is the must equal of separate but equal civil unions

As strange as that sounds!

[DainBramaged]

7. As a straight old man with Gay friends, it is a victory

And a step closer to equal rights as married members of society in some States (eventually NJ). How long did equal rights for African Americans take to fully be implemented? I know, this isn't the dark ages but the Religious (?) Reich hates gays far more than Brown and Black people, and will keep their fears churning the sheeple for decades.

[samq79]

14. An interesting question...

Speaking from outside the issue(being neither a resident of NJ or a homosexual), I would like to think that it is a victory of sorts, but I can definitely see the view that this is still a segregation point in the battle of who can legally be "married." The hang up in this whole issue has been over the word marriage, and whether marriage is a legal or religious term. This whole debate is infuriating, as lines are drawn simply based on semantics. Everyone has an opinion one way or another on gay marriage. The debate over the semantic side of this argument will NEVER end...believe me. As much as we all hope ignorance will simply up and disappear, it's not highly likely. Those unwilling to see even the most basic tenets of morality and hypocrisy will always keep this debate tied up on the world stage.

I think New Jersey has taken a brave step in the right direction, but there will always be religious hypocrites who say that God created us in his own image, while screaming out of the other side of their face that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" To that end, if we're all in his image, then so are Adam and Steve, so more power to them!!! Equal rights for all, unless I don't agree with their lifestyle?? I don't think so. God either loves us all or none of us...he doesn't pick and choose.

I could go on forever with this argument, but I'll spare you for now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. its a consolation prize.

[OregonBi]

33. baby steps

Baby steps my friend, little baby steps is what it takes sometimes. There are a lot of pig headed bigots in this nation and it will take time to over rule them all. We must and will keep pushing until we can enjoy every freedom guaranteed us by the Constitution.
We will keep pushing, keep protesting, keep lobbying our Congress people, keep very active in politics. Soon the bigot fundies will be relegated to the trash heaps of history. Then our GLBT relationships and marriages will be the norm and the fundies will be the outcasts!

Stay true to yourselves and don't get discouraged.
Remember the tale of the hare and the rabbit?

Baby steps, baby steps...

[swimboy]

34. Welcome to DU, OregonBi!

:hi:

[Siyahamba]

36. It seems backward at this point.

There are countries and even a US state where marriage equality have been in place for years (without any detours through "civil unions") and society hasn't fallen there.

Still...better than nothing.

[kitkatrose]

38. I have a question, if someone doesn't mind answering.

Are the civil unions valid across state lines? My first thought is no, but since someone is claiming that they confer the same rights as marriage, isn't one of those rights the ability for the marriage/union be recognized in other states if the couple has to move or something?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. No. NJ will recognize civil unions and same-sex marriages (as civil unions) from other countries

and states, but a NJ civil union is not recognized in other states.

[moose65]

83. Interesting....

And I assume that the other states with civil unions do NOT reciprocate? If you get unionized (I love that term!) in New Jersey and then move to Vermont or Connecticut, the union isn't recognized automatically. But it is recognized if it's the other way around and you move INTO Jersey. Hmmm... so much for civil unions being the 'same' as marriage!!

[moose65]

84. My 2 cents

I agree with many, many people here who see this as a 'baby step' and recognize that the fight for marriage equality will be long and difficult. On the other hand, I can see this as 'progress' in that 10 or 15 years ago we couldn't even fathom the idea of ANY recognition for our relationships. Here in NC, we don't have an amendment banning gay marriage, but one is introduced every year and the Democrats who control our legislature keep it bottled up in committee. NC is now surrounded by states that have passed constitutional amendments, so I think the only hope I'd ever have to get legal recognition for my partner and me would be a civil union (moving north is not an option at the moment). I'd take a civil union if I could get it, I guess. Any day now....

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

85. Right, as far as I know, they aren't automatically recognized if you move from NJ to VT or CT, etc.

NJ is (I think) the first state to recognize them from other states and countries.

[LostinVA]

40. No, because of DOMA

However, NJ is recognizing same sex unions from other states AND countries.

[kitkatrose]

43. Thanks Haruka and LostinVA. That's what I thought, but wasn't really sure.

So much for it being the same as marriage, although it is nice that NJ is recognizing others' civil unions.

Both of you posted at the same time. :D

[LostinVA]

47. That's because we're evil soul twins!

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. What equal rights would that be?

While civil unions are a step in the right direction, they do not make everything entirely equal now, do they? Stop spinning it to make is sound like it is a huge victory, when all it really is, is just baby steps.

[LostinVA]

55. Oh,FC, stop being so overly sensitive

And listen to the nice straight people who are taking us to task in this thread. Especially the OP WHO ASKED THIS SAME BASIC QUESTION NOVEMBER 16.

Silly lesbian.

[DuaneBidoux]

61. Can you point to one post where I have taken you to task?

Please. Show me. I am always in favor of personal growth.

[foreigncorrespondent]

65. I'm sorry, LVA...

...I don't know what came over me. I got the memo which told us we have to obey straight people, because they know what is good for us.

And yes, it does get annoying when we have the same OP asking the same damn question of us yet again.

[DuaneBidoux]

60. I'm not spinning it. Give me a friggin break! I am NOT YOUR ENEMY

for Christ's sake.

I have read (I do not know) that the legal rights under the NJ civil unions are equal as those provided by marriage (with several federal exceptions). To name some that I understand (perhaps incorrectly): right to have all company benefits enjoyed by a married heterosexual couple including health and retirement benefits. The right to specify custody to your partner (spouse if you prefer) of your adopted or by birth child. The right to make medical decisions for your partner in the event that he or she becomes disabled. The right to act as executor (sp?) of the estate for your own or others benefits on the death of your partner. The rights of a partner is a dissolving civil union to receive adequate compensation from the overall estate.

This is NOT the whole ball of wax. We are still missing rights for these folks. But my question was: can we legitimately feel good about this? Can we call it progress? Yes, it isn't marriage. That should be our ultimate goal--but give up your idealism for just a moment: can you imagine the GOOD we could do if we could get this in say 12 or 14 states in the next 5 years!

Where I understand that there will be no impact is in the distribution of social security to the partner on either the retirement of the death of the partner. These are, obviously, federal regulations over which states can have no impact.

Trust me, conservatives would feel great just taking away a few rights from these people. They wouldn't demand that all rights get taken instantly. Can we not feel good when some rights are given? Even if it isn't what is ultimately and completely right?

[foreigncorrespondent]

64. Oh God you are so clueless...

...you state you have had several gay and lesbian friends over the years, etc, etc, etc, yet you really have no bloody clue as to what this all means, do you?

I have read (I do not know) that the legal rights under the NJ civil unions are equal as those provided by marriage (with several federal exceptions).

Try 1,138.

And while all those rights look good on paper, remember they are only valid in New Jersey. If a unionized couple moves from NJ to another part of the country, they will lose all those entitlements. Does that happen to heterosexual couples?

So now, if you want to see this as progression towards equality go for it, but don't expect to have the support of the vast majority of queers, who do happen to recognize this as being nothing more than trying to appease the base.

I personally won't feel good until everything is equal across the board.

And please stop spining it to suit yourself. By stating that this brings everything equal is spin, mate, because it won't be equal until I get unionized in NJ, have my spouse sponsor me for immigration, then be able to live in CA with all the rights straight married couples enjoy.

[DuaneBidoux]

67. Where did I state:

..And please stop spining it to suit yourself. By stating that this brings everything equal.."

Can you please point that out to me? Where did I state that? I will take it back once you point in out to me.

[foreigncorrespondent]

73. Right in your OP!

I can't help but be happy for the people who will now have equal legal rights as other people

But I remember you, Duane. You have said in the past you would take things back if someone points out where you have said it. I am still waiting for it to happen from the last time, so I won't hold my breath waiting this time, ok?

[DuaneBidoux]

86. I will concede half a point on this and claim only that my writing could have been better.

What I wrote does not adequately express what I was thinking (and feeling).

Here is the statement:
I can't help but be happy for the people who will now have equal legal rights as other people, but perhaps this is an uniformed reaction.

I know this law doesn't bring equality to gay people in NJ but there are a tremendous number of rights (at least at the state level) that are now equal. Here I was specifically talking about a lot of things like the right to specify partner's custody of children upon death, right to have retirement and other company benefits. I'll always remember If These Walls Could Talk 2 where the elderly lady fell and her partner couldn't even see her in the hospital and her partners family essentially popped in afterwards and raped her of her possessions.

This post was done in a moment of excitement. I watched a video of two people going for the cermony as it was videotaped on camera. I felt very good for them--they seemed happy, it FELT to me like a good thing and so I rushed to DU and posted. As you said it is impossible for me to be as sensitive to GLBT people as someone who has experienced it, just like I am sure that as a white person I can never feel the repression against blacks.

I am sorry that I am not more careful with my words, but please don't hold that so severly against me. I take it back (I just tried to go to the original post and edit, conceding your point, but it said the period I could edit was already over, unfortunatly.)

[foreigncorrespondent]

87. Oh please!

As I said, I won't hold my breath.

[noamnety]

66. Why keep asking the same question?

Can we not feel good when some rights are given? Even if it isn't what is ultimately and completely right?

Everydamnbody has said: This is a step in the right direction, but it still sucks. Everydamnbody has said: This is like giving us a separate drinking fountain. It's nice to be allowed to have a drink of water (in some parts of the country) that ain't from the back of the toilet for once but goddamn it, don't expect people to drag out the party hats and the noise makers over that, cause they still ain't allowed to drink from the fountains that belong to those white folks.

Quit expecting people to be happy cause they have more rights than people in some other country, or because they have more rights than they did 50 years ago. The only honest nonprivileged thing for you to be comparing their rights to is what they ought to have, as basic human beings. If you got more rights than them, don't act all offended that they are ungrateful. It's like the men who don't get why women aren't happy about being raped and having the judicial system release 98% of the rapists without charges. "Heck, you all got it good, in other countries you'd get stoned if you were raped." Well, shit, if that ain't cause for some cake and ice cream, I don't know what is.

Lastly, don't be trying to tell people with less rights than you how they are supposed to feel about the partial rights the benevolent powers that be were gracious enough to bestow upon them. It's patronizing and offensive.

I'm gonna repeat that: don't be trying to tell people with less rights than you how they are supposed to feel.

[DuaneBidoux]

68. Can you please point out where I told other people how they were supposed to feel?

I'm gonna repeat that: don't be trying to tell people with less rights than you how they are supposed to feel.

Please point out where I told other people how they were supposed to feel? If you can I will take it all back and eat my own shit.

[noamnety]

75. It's what I'm hearing implied in the endless repetition of the question

like you're gonna keep asking it til you get the answer you want - which is that the GLBT community SHOULD feel happy. From this thread alone:

is New Jersey a victory or is it a slap in the face?
Can we feel good about this.
Can we call this (this specific instance in NJ) progress?
Can we call it a step forward?
If so, should we feel good about it?
Is this a victory?
Is this progress?
can we legitimately feel good about this?
Can we call it progress?
give up your idealism for just a moment
Can we not feel good when some rights are given?

[TechBear_Seattle]

63. Jim Crow marriage is not a victory

Separate is inherently unequal, according to the United States Supreme Court. Civil unions are to marriage what segregation was to civil rights.

[DuaneBidoux]

70. From OP, can mod please lock? This has apparently been provocative. I will post here no more.

I will concern myself with other progressive values where I can hopefully have more empathy.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

71. Oh please, you come into here to start flamewars (I posted links above linking to those threads) NOW

you say you're moving onto other progressive values, because you were called on it. Well, what an ally you are.

[foreigncorrespondent]

74. Why is it...

...when you are backed into a corner you always ask for your threads to be locked? You did this once before down here in the LGBT forum, mate.

[JeremyWestenn]

76. Yep. Next best thing to what we want. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

88. heck yes! n/t