8 Important Distinctions Between Marriages and Civil Unions

[winggoddess]

a girlfriend and boyfriend who never got married would encounter the same problems. it seems silly to me that a couple has to get married in order to enjoy these benefits.

[breemystic]

Gays want the legal status of married, because on the Federal Tax Form it says "Married Filing Jointly" or "Married Filing Separately" otherwise you are Single. There is no Civil Union or Domestic Partnership option.

See this is the reason why when I, a woman got married to my husband, we had the marriage ceremony in the form of a handfasting by a Unitarian minister. I refused to get married in a church, because Christians will give the Marriage title to people who don't even believe in God.

[scandiman68]

what the hell happened to this guy's hair? Looks like he just got done jogging here for the interview

[Titanz91]

You can rag on me all you want, but I think it's fucking ridiculous to look down on love as disgusting and wrong for no good reason. Why would you? Mary and Tom, Terry and Jerry or Lisa and Kate. WHO CARES? !It hurts no one, affects no one (Obviously besides the involved party). Believe what you want, as lame as I think it is, it's your right to believe it, but you have no right to steal our rights (Btw leirgauk, this isn't aimed at you, I'm talking in general., but respond if you want).

[leirgauk]

i agree with everything he says, i think (didnt watch the whole video), BUT, the point remains - gay people should have the same rights everybody else. and christians should have the right to NOT change their beliefs just because some fags dont wanna be outsiders in a soiciety that strongly courages equal rights. ofcourse gays should get married, and even call it a "marriage" and get all the same rights as us. BUT! of course not in the name of god! r u crazy? HOW can u CHANGE an ENTIRE religion?

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk They seem to think they have the right to "change" us. Religion blows.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 No! u wanna change them! u want them to accept gay marriage, even though their bible forbids them to do so! that's really mean! if you are gay AND christian, then.... WHY THE FUCK ARE U GAY AND CHRISTIAN!?!?! any gay man believing in the bible believes that he will burn in hell for acting out on evil urges given by god as a test! and if u're a gay christian who interpets the bible in his own way, then u're forcing everybody else to do the same for ur own selfish reasons. FUCK OFF FAGS!

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk I'm not Christian (Nor Islamic, Jewish or anything). Not all gay men that believe in the Bible believe they go to hell for acting on their "evil urges" (PS: They aren't evil). We aren't forcing anyone to do anything, we just want equal rights. Fuck off you Bible thumping ass holes!

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 but u cant always have equal rights! its the same as me demanding to join the female soccer team because im a fucking tranny! could i do that? NO! cause females suck at soccer and trannies are fucking badass at it! BUT, what i COULD do is start my own tranny team! that would be like gays forming their own sub-religion under christianity, where gay is okay. both gays and straights would join and the fundamentalist christians would get to keep their religion. EEEVERYBODY GAY!

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 "Fuck off you Bible thumping ass holes!"

see, what u want is for all christians to stop interpreting the bible literally. and u see nothing wrong with that?

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk Lololololololol no. I don't care what they do. They can interpret it however they want. What I and other homosexuals want is for them to stop interfering with our lives and let us have our rights.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk Btw, ask me instead of just assuming bull shit.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 how the fucking shit is christianity interfering with gays? gays are the ones who wants to marry in church! so THEY're the interfering ones, no? all christianity is saying is "fuck off". and not even in that way. they're saying "welcome to our religion. good 4 u that u're reaching out to god, now, let us save u from ur disease!", because christians believe its their god given duty to convert gays and save them from hell. how can u then expect that they ENCOURAGE homosexuality instead?

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk When you have all these Christians keeping us from getting married and keeping us from having rights, allll because their religious beliefs tell them to, like we're some sort of disease. I don't want to get hitched in a church. Are you fucking kidding me? I only want the government to recognize it, I could care less about the church. I don't care what they believe, they have no right to steal my rights from us (Gays). There's nothing wrong with being gay.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 Well, you are some sort of disease. Not my personal opinion, but it's what The Bible says. I still don't see why you think they're interfering with you, when it's clearly the other way around. Killing an infidel, THAT's interference. While the act of not letting an infidel take a shit on your face while forcing you to eat your own holy book is NOT interference. Surely you wouldn't understand the difference. Much like yourself, your little example is completely and blatantly retarded.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk No, I am not a disease. So what if the Bible says so? The Bible says plenty of HORRIBLE things in it and I don't see you going on about those, too.. Yeah, they are interfering with us. They're marching, protesting and doing whatever else they can to keep us from having equal rites and protection (Marriage, benefits, housing etc.). That IS INTERFERENCE, ignorance and evil. What kind of sick fucks take pleasure in taking rights away from millions of people? Ass holes like you.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk My example made perfect sense. You said they're just doing what the Bible and their religion tell them too (Implying you think it's for them to do what they want in the name of their religion). Lots of these suicide bombers feel their religion tell them too kill people by suicide bombing in order to hurt an kill others because they don't believe as they do. Two totally different things, but you get my point. Spit out the bull shit, brush your teeth and move the fuck on, douche bag.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 When did you ever hear me talking about marriage benefits? Of course gays should have the same legal benefits when they're "unionised". That's not what this is about. It's about a buncha self-righteous gay fuckers (you) who think they have the right to change all people's beliefs, just because they disagree (and ignoring the fact that they're contradicting The Bible) and simply just wants to have gay sex real bad without being judged by God for it.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk No, I dn't beleive that. I'm not telling people to change their beliefs, but regardless, they DON'T have the right to harm, ruin or mess with other peoples lives. I'm not stuck up enough (or at all) to even refer to myself as "Self-righteous".

Besides, IMO, what kind of god "god" would forbid love and unison between two loving people? It's bull shit and ridiculous.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 You're completely avoiding the issue. Indeed you would have to be pretty messed up to deny gays from being unionised outside church, where church has no saying whatsoever (thank God) and deny them the same legal rights as other unionised (married) couples. That's not the point. I believe in the 1th amendment and freedom to believe what you want, no matter how wrong it may be. NOT in the freedom of interfering with others in a negative way, because I'm not some stupid anarchist.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 The only way for gays to be married in church would be to change Christianity's view on marriage, and that's what I'm against.

"No. I don't care at all about the church. I don't believe in god, I don't want a religious marriage, just government recognized marriage. That's what you don't get."

That's why it's so great that you have the freedom to avoid them and vice versa. Can you picture a society where the public has the right to vote on what people should believe? I don't want to.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk Ok, fine for the ones who want to get married in a church. I don't. Most gays asking aren't religious institutions to preform a marriage ceremony. We're advocating for government recognized marriage (Separation of church and state?). I'm not asking Christians to change their beliefs, just to stop trying to make our lives miserable.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs, but if you wanna talk about voting on what people believe, Christians are doing it now (Prop 8?). They are forcing their beliefs on us by (Trying to) taking our rights away and keeping us from getting equal rights. Are you saying it's good of them to do that? Is it right? I mean really, what kind of person would say taking peoples rights away for no good reason is ok? Their religion tells them to think that way? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. Whatever.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 Okay, hold on for a minute. Are you saying that you are okay with the fact that gays cannot get married in church, under the name of the Christian God, as long as they can get married as much as they want outside church, provided they get the exact same legal benefits as other married couples?

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk No, I didn't say that. Just that, lots of gays don't care if they get married in a church or not, and that it does not matter to me because I don't believe in god. I think it's a STUPID thing to refuse to marry a loving couple, but hey, what are you gunna do? Force'em (No, I wouldn't force someone to do that)? I want it to be called marriage. I want the same benefits and obligations, too. No more, no less. That's equality.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk It's not like Christians own the rights to marriage. It's not a purely religious thing (And to many, it's not religious to them at all) I hate how they think they can dictate to the rest of the world who can and cannot get married. Everyone should have the right too get married ad enjoy the benefits that come with it.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 I get why you want the same legal benefits. But why is it so important to have the right to get married in church? You can get married anywhere else, why is church so important? The church DOES in fact own the rights to Christian marriage. And seeing that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, don't you think it's just slightly retarded to demand that they marry you under the name of their gay-hating god?

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk Dude, I;m sorry, but the whole time I've been trying to say this over and over and you aren't getting it. The church is not important to me. I don't want to force a church to marry gays (Wellme, lol) , just for the government to preform and recognize male+male and female+female marriages. Not in a church, but in a court house or whatever. I was being general. I mean Christians don't own the concept or the word marriage, period (Everyone should have a right to it).

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 Well, in that case, i'm awfully sorry. I thought you demanded to have an actual Christian marriage IN church. That's the only thing I'm against (and for the right reasons, notably). I've had that debate before, and therefore just assumed that that was your opinion aswell. And when you said "I don't care about getting married in church" I thought you were just talking on behalf of yourself. And for this and all the time we've wasted on this, I truly am sorry :P

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 If all you're fighting for is the word "marriage" and the legal rights, then I'm behind ya 100% (not in a gay way tho).

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk You didn't need to add "not in a gay way tho". It's not like I'll come onto you.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 Sorry, but I really did need to add that.

[leirgauk]

@Titanz91 Your problem is your incapability of separating church and state matters, as well as your lack of understanding the words "interference" and "douchebag". Also, you're gay. And retarded.

Killing someone is interference. Starting your own gentleman club and denying women access is not. The women demanding access would be the interferers. Please understand the difference.

You repeatedly call me "douchebag", when really you mean to say "dirtbag", "asshole" or "jerk". Learn the difference

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk No. I don't care at all about the church. I don't believe in god, I don't want a religious marriage, just government recognized marriage. That's what you don't get.

If you keep gays from getting married by voting against it, harassing gays and all that jazz, that IS interference in other peoples lives. Maybe i'm spelling it wrong. Sorry for that. I demand equal rights. I shouldn't even halve to do that. Everyone should have them.

No, I mean douche bag, not dirtbag or anything else.

[Titanz91]

@leirgauk So, if I believe it's my god given duty to "Kill the infidels" and suicide bomb a school or two, that'd be ok because my "religion" told me to? You're an idiot.

[MyLifeOnCamera]

WOrk i luv it

[Elelki]

Easilier? Duuuude.

But yes, I'm with jshweid. Make civil marriages ALL "civil unions" -- same rules, rights, penalties and priveldges for all. Solemnize (or not) where you please (or not). Give ALL equal rights (not just in CA). Your church can still refuse to recognise same -sex unions -- or mixed-race unions. But let's have the "state" be FAIR TO ALL.

[Clemburke1111]

It is about hate.

[jshweid]

I've been waiting for these kind of facts. thank you. the problem is, both the state and the church claim monopoly on the institution of marriage, why not just have a single marriage contract available for all through the state, and keep the solemnizing ritual up to the couple or church to which they belong? Why should the government order a couple to undergo a religious rite in order to validate a state-issued document?

[dust4ngel]

excellent work bro.

[cuddles50]

You have your hair on backwards.

[ColbertPhilosopher]

lmao

[ooiamsamoo]

@cuddles50 he does but its cute! lol

[mmurray21]

Put together a petition to close these gaps and I will sign it. If these differences were erased without using the term marriage, would this end the debate?

[yllwducky]

I believe this was the very same argument used when segregation of public schools was brought before the supreme court. It was proven that by separating the two entities it inherently created discrimination and differences. And if the your argument against the use of the term marriage is for religious issues, why then is it legal for atheists to be married? why are they not subjugated to forming a civil union?

Because there is such a thing called the separation of church and state.

[mmurray21]

I appreciate the discussion. I think the difference is that they were able to prove that especially with children, there was a detrimental effect to the separation. I am not sure you can make the case with adults. Additionally, you can't claim separation of church and state then want the government to tell churches what they should allow.

Finally, if you ask voters to affirm the civil rights of minorities, you will always lose. This fight will be won in the courts not on state by state ballots

[yllwducky]

"you cant claim separation of church and state then want the government to tell churches what they should allow"

would you make the same assertion regarding mixed race couples? the majority of churches of the time did not agree with mixed race marriage and used many of the same arguments used to today against gay marriage. and yet the majority would denounce a church that denied their right to marriage.

I agree that the fight will be won in the courts, however that wont stop people from trying.

[mmurray21]

The mixed race argument is weak as well. If you asked black people TODAY if they supported mix race marriages the majority would say no. If someone dared place something like that on the ballot it would go down in flames.

I don't have any issue with you trying. I think the cause is just. Just don't blame people (blacks, mormons, etc) when you fail with a flawed strategy.

[kenballer00]

@yllwducky

you are wrongly applying the Brown decision to this case. in the Brown or even the Loving case, they not only segregated INDIVIDUALS (not behaviors) based on RACIAL characteristics but they did it for no rational reason whatsoever other than personal bias. in this situation, its the complete opposite. we have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, and even separate but equal schools

[kenballer00]

@yllwducky

Obviously, this is because there's a fundamental difference between race and gender. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted separate facilities for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. you would agree that men and woman are equal but different just like civil unions and marriage.

[yllwducky]

@kenballer00 Any form of 'separate but equal' was found to be inherently discriminatory in the brown case. Also, in the loving case they never distinguished that people have a right to only heterosexual marriage, the supreme court said that people have a right to marriage thanks to the privacy clause of the constitution. That includes the gay community. Neither the constitution nor case law allows for "separate but equal" marriages. I think the prop 8 trial will prove this.

[kenballer00]

@yllwducky

if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy

[kenballer00]

@yllwducky

in a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the supreme court ruled that "Separate" is essentially "Equal" as long as each gender has a choice in going to each school and that there is a legitimate state interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER as well as them being equally abled to go to both schools for both genders. just like with marriage when it comes to the Baker v. Nelson case.

[yllwducky]

@kenballer00 I believe you are wrong. I don't want to get into a long discussion about this because judging from the comments on your channel you can't be convinced otherwise, just as I can't be convinced otherwise. I believe that you are going to be on th wrong side of history but regardless I hope you have a great day,

cheers!

[pumpkinheadedmf]

Great video. Thank you for putting this out there.

[absolute141]

"easilyer" ... nice haha