Marriage v Civil Unions

Before I took this course I didn’t understand the difference between marriage and civil unions. I always wondered why the LGBT community was so persistent about legalizing same-sex marriage when it could just opt for civil unions. However, after taking this course I have learned that there IS a difference between marriage and civil unions.

To begin with, marriages are recognized across countries, cultures, and religions; civil unions are not. Civil unions are not recognized in all states. This means that if a couple gets a civil union in state and moves to another state, that state might not recognize the civil union. This depends on the state’s policy. Also, in a marriage a citizen can sponsor his or her spouse for immigration into the U.S. Citizens with a civil union can’t do this. Lastly, the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions. This means that couples that get civil unions aren’t able to file joint-tax returns. They have to file individual tax returns. They’re also not are eligible for tax breaks or protections that the government provides married couples with.

These are the reasons why the LGBT community will not conform to civil unions. If you want to see a more extensive explanation on the differences between marriages and civil unions see this helpful article.

Mexico: an accepting community

I recently found out that my cousin is gay. When I first heard the news I was taken aback because I would’ve never guessed he was gay. However, after the shock subsided and I acknowledged that he was gay my feelings towards him didn’t change at all. My parents brought me up to be a person who accepts and respects everyone regardless of things like race, religion, or sexual preferences. So, I love my cousin to death and his sexual preferences don’t affect that at all.

What worried me, however, was how his family was going to respond to the news. They are a very traditional Mexican family. Because of this I assumed that they weren’t going to be accepting about his sexual preferences.

However, when I decided to do some research about the topic, what I found surprised me. Apparently the Mexican community is one of the most accepting of the LGBT community. In fact, homosexuality was never explicitly banned in Mexico. Also Mexico City now has a new definition of marriage. The new definition of marriage is the "the free uniting of two people" instead of the previous "one man and one woman. You’ll find more great information in this article.

Holy... god, this is complicated.

But worth a look I think.

Found this online while looking for a different chart entirely, but I'm glad I did.  A mostly complete overview of the arguments for and against gay marriage, color-coded by side, and with arrows to track the direction of the debate.  It is very very crowded (obviously) and biased towards the pro-equality side, but very interesting, and I think useful.  (And anyway, I'm not really complaining about it being biased towards my side, now am I?)  If nothing else, it's worth a look and a think just to realize how ridiculous and complicated out of proportion the whole argument becomes.  When it's just a matter of equal rights.

Illinois Poised To Enact Civil Unions

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill by a vote of 61-52 on Tuesday afternoon, with swift passage expected in the more liberal Illinois State Senate by the end of the day and SB 1617 ending up on Governor Pat Quinn's desk shortly thereafter.

Chicago Pride covered the story thusly:

Openly gay Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who co-sponsored SB 1716, started his opening statement at 5:17 p.m on Tuesday. "Once in every generation," he said, "legislatures across the country have a chance to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all."

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716) which passed to cheers in the chamber with a 61-52 majority vote, received support from the Democratic leadership in Springfield, including Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who was present.

[...]

Conservative groups, including the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Washington D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), lobbied hard against the bill.

The bill does not recognize same-sex marriages, but will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington have passed laws allowing same sex civil unions. Same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Iowa.

Congratulations to Illinois! I think it is quite amusing that heterosexual supremacists are now left making the counterfactual claim that "civil unions are identical to marriage" and are thus opposing measures that many in the LGBT community reject as "separate but unequal."

I like a boy in uniform

This is just such an amazing image, i couldnt help but post it. i knew a boy who became a marine...he hated it. he's a psychology major now, i think.
We've been hearing so much about DADT in class and on the news, but maybe we could think of another part of military policy for a while. What do people feel about women serving in the military? Actually, what do people know about women serving in the military, because i'm woefully uninformed. I'm under the impression, though, that women are not allowed to serve in open combat. Am i right? Hmm. well if anyone knows better than me, certainly correct me. But if we are to assume that i am right, what do people think about that? fair, unfair? based on what?
Personally i find it reassuring, given the fact that i am in face female. I feel the same way about DADT, to be honest. I recognize, though, that for people who want to serve their country it shouldn't matter what race, sex, orientation, or religion they are. What is the military rational for these limits? we shall see we shall see.

Actually, this brings me to a much more interesting question. I'm bored of the old one. Why is it that military rights are more of a talked about issue in the news than marriage rights? Why is it easier to get the right to hurt people than it is to get the right to love?

'nuff said.


(also props to anyone who knows the title of this post)

The Kid

Lets talk about books!

So anyone from the Pacific Northwest should know the name of Dan Savage. If you dont just...just got find a respectable newspaper and read him or something, because i dont even want to describe how deprived your life must be. If you're not from the Pacific Northwest and you still know Dan Savage, good job.

ANYWAYS, mini bio, Dan Savage is an author and newspaper editor who i know mainly from his column Savage Love, which answers readers questions about sex in a very frank and humorous way. Dan has always concerned his writing with politics, culture, and homosexuality (i dont know if there's a genre for what he writes...it's not satire, but it's not political analysis either). He's a pretty controversial character, even in the gay community, but i adore him (my friends and i also stalk him around seattle coffee shops. good times.)

Dan and his (now husband, then boyfriend) Terry adopted a son in the early 2000s, and Dan chose to write a book about the experience. It's called The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant.



It's a very small book, and an easy read, which is why i would recommend it to anyone who is interested in adoption, gay marriage, legal rights of gay couples, lesbians, children, homeless teens, or just good memoirs. just go read the book.

The book is dedicated to his husband, Terry, but the whole thing is written as if his child were one day to read it. It's very sweet, and it gets into a lot of the controversy behind gay couples adopting. He talks about the fear of homosexuals and pedophilia, gay marriage, adoption policies (even pertaining to straight couples) and a whole slew of other issues. the really interesting part of the book is that it is not a book meant to educate; it's just one guy, writing because he has a word count to fill for his editor, talking about what his personal experiences have been. It's a very personal book (so personal that, at times, i felt like i was unfairly invading his life and i wanted to put the book down) but that's its charm.
This puts a face and a voice to the issue of the 'gay family', which is something a lot of political argument is missing. Opponents of gay rights talk about 'those gay people' and all 'their habits'. It's been observed, though, that many people are opposed to gay rights as a sort of default; they arent gay, they dont know anyone gay, so it doesnt really apply to them. If 'those gays' dont get to marry, who cares? it doesnt apply to them!
It has been observed, though, that when ambivalent opponents to gay rights meet gay people and talk to them or, better yet, realize someone they've known all their life is gay, their opinions change pretty fast. it's no longer 'those gay people' as a generalization, it's individual voices and lives. This book is just one of those voices, and its greatest quality is the humanity it brings to these issues.


go read it.

Why I'm Not Getting Married Until Gay Marriage is Legalized

Let me forward this by pointing out that the reason is not just the possibility of me marrying a woman.  I'm actually undecided in my personal sexuality, so there's a perfectly good chance of me falling in love with a young man who I could, quite legally, in any state of my choosing, enter into nuptials with.  There's also the chance, which I have known for quite a while, that the person I fall in love with will not believe in the institution of marriage, (though I do,) as let's face it, I hang out with hippies.  And the whole point might actually be moot, because I have no intention of getting married until I'm well into my 20s and I really really hope that by that time, gay marriage will be legal anyway.  But if it isn't, and I do end up in a serious relationship with a man, and he does believe in the institution of marriage, I'm still not going to marry him until gay marriage is legalized nationally.

I haven't actually mentioned this to many people yet, thus I wanted to blog about it publicly.  Honestly, the reasoning is pretty simple in my mind.  As stated, I hang out with hippies, I'm really really obviously left-leaning, and I have been raised to believe in equality in all its forms.  Actually, when I was very little, I didn't even get that there was something unusual about two men being together - my gay uncle gave my sister and I a children's picture book called "My Two Uncles," and I liked the book, but the fact is, I didn't need the book to inform me of how okay it was that he was romantically involved with another man... it was just kind of fact to me for as long as I can remember.  If anything, I have taken that ethos far further than I think my parents expected me to, and am currently planning on going into a career as a lawyer to put my ideals into action.  And another way of doing that, i.e. putting my ideals into action, for me is to refuse to get married to a man until gay marriage is legalized.  As long as the situation in the United States is such that, if I were to want to marry a woman, I would not be allowed to, there is absolutely no reason why I should be able to marry a man either.  In short, if you're forbidding their gay marriage, my straight marriage should be forbidden too.  Incidentally, according to my friend Christine (she and my sister are the only people I've mentioned it to since deciding, since it came up in conversation,) this tactic was followed on the TV show Queer as Folk, which is hardly surprising, and reminds me that I should watch it.

So, anyway, just wanted to say that, and figured this would be a good platform to.  Thoughts?  Am I insane?  Do you approve?  Do we have better things to talk about?  Well, yes to the last one, but...