Here ya go: Yet another reason why equal

[cboy4]

marriage is the only answer == as opposed to civil unions in some states here, and domestic partnerships in some states there == when it comes to getting anything done from an official/legal standpoint.

Nothing is uniform from state-to-state, so it's a complete pain in the ass.

Tragically, I don't think either of our candidates is particularly worried about any of this. x(

===============================================================================================
SAME-SEX COUPLE BLOCKED BY H & R

Tax Preparer Says Its Computer Software Can't Support Civil-Union Returns


By MARK PAZNIOKAS | Courant Staff Writer
March 26, 2008

After 23 months of same-sex, civil-union bliss, Jason Smith and Settimio Pisu had grown accustomed to some institutions being not quite ready for the concept of gay spouses.

There was that long day at the DMV trying to jointly register a car, which ended pleasantly enough with an apology from a clerk

<snip>

Shock melted into annoyance after he concluded that H&R Block meant that its software, not politics, keeps it from supporting civil-union returns.

The giant tax preparer was willing to prepare the couple's taxes at one of its offices for $199.80 — $155 more than the online price.

Not good enough.

As the American Civil Liberties Union noted Tuesday in a letter to H&R Block, that's discrimination under a Connecticut law that forbids denying "full and equal accommodation" on the basis of sexual orientation or civil-union status.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-hrblocked0326.artmar26,0,4268053.story

[bryant69]

1. I favor civil unions for everybody - straight or gay. No more marriages

If straight people had to put up with these hassles they'd solve them right off.

But certainly the current hodgepodge solution isn't ideal.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warpy]

2. Exactly, make marriage a religious concept

Issue civil unions at the courthouse when both parties sign the contract. Have the ceremonial nonsense centered in the churches, temples and mosques.

My guess is that there will be a lot fewer marriages among straight couples hoping to escape all the sexist baggage that marriage entails.

Gay couples who want the religious stuff can find sympathetic ministers at a number of denominations.

[mondo joe]

5. You may already know there are civil marriages, with no whiff of religion.

"civil union" = "civil marriage".

[Book Lover]

15. This feminist atheist is not giving up her marriage

I do not have a civil union. I have a marriage. A for-the-long-haul marriage. The issue is to get the state to recognize that the marriage between two men or two women is just as vaild as mine, not to play word games.

[cboy4]

3. What do you mean if straight people had to put up with these

hassles, they'd "solve them right off?"

[bryant69]

6. Most people are straight - most leaders are straight

Most of the kids getting married are straight. If civil unions were the only game in town, these sorts of problems would be solved because we wouldn't allow ourselves to put up with the hassles. As long as the problems associated with civil unions only apply to a minority, they won't be solved because there's no real impetus to solve them.

Bryant

[cboy4]

10. OK.....gotcha.

Thanks.

[mondo joe]

4. That might be a good movement for you to start. But it has nothing to do with the issue

of inequality and civil rights for same sex couples.

[bryant69]

7. How doesn't it?

The inequality for same sex couples stems from the fact that they can't get married, they mostly can't get civil unions and even if they can get civil unions they still aren't equal to marriage.

So drop marriage, give everybody civil unions, solve the problems with civil unions, mandate that same sex couples can participate in civil unions, and a lot of these problems are solved. A lot aren't of course. But I don't see how you can say there is no connection.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

8. Changing the name of the exact same thing woin't change people opposed to

legal recognition for same sex couples.

"Just give everyone civil unions" is a fool's paradise. People are neither going to surrender their own legal marriage, nor will they suddenly shrug and pass out civil unions like free candy.

If we could just make all that happen, we could wave the same magic wand and just have same sex marriage.

[bryant69]

9. Well that's true.

I can't deny that. But I don't know how you solve that underlining problems, and my solution does have the advantage of being more palatable towards those who feel that Same Sex Marriage is an offense against marriage.

But yeah, it's nice in theory, but probably intractable. Just like giving blacks equal rights; white people won't stand for it.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

12. Again, if you want to lead that mission, go right ahead. But it's not an equality

issue, which is what a lot of GLBT people are fighting for.

[bryant69]

16. How is it not an equality issue?

I guess I don't get your disagreement. I thought you were saying that we couldn't have civil unions to everybody because enough bigoted people would object - and this bill doesn't actually fix the underlining problem, that a lot of people are bigoted against homosexuals. Is that what you are saying when you say it is not an equality issue?

Bryant

[mondo joe]

19. Whether we have marriages or civil unions, there is no promise of equality

before the law for same sex partners.

Changing the name of civil marriage isn't an issue proponents of equality are championing. We're looking for equal access under whatever the model is.

[Dhalgren]

13. The Constitution gives all citizens equal rights. The problem are those

citizens who do not wish to recognize a group as being fully citizens. For the government, in any form, to side with or acknowledge the efficacy of the rights deniers is criminal, period...

[bryant69]

17. How many people went to jail for denying blacks their civil rights? n/t

[Dhalgren]

20. In a society where oppression is tolerated, there are a lot of

activities that in an fair society would not be acceptable - what would be crimes go unpunished...

[Dhalgren]

11. There are "civil marriages" right now. Any straight couple can go

to the court house and be married in a civil ceremony, with no religious bullshit. But a gay couple can't - and that is the problem. "Religious marriages" is a kind of red herring in all of this. Civil marriages already exist, if there were equality for all citizens, there would be no need to create any new form of "union"...

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. That is exactly it. The red herring. It's about appeasing the straight voters who

generally for religious reasons oppose sharing the word marriage and all the privileges that go along with it with the GBLT community.

[bryant69]

18. Yep. I don't think it's a red herring, but I think that's essentiall it.

A lot of people seem to think marriage is a religious institution; if so why should the government be performing it?

Bryant

[ruiner4u]

21. glad to be the first to K&R...