Those pesky Mexicans are at it again!

[Jingthing]

I've posted like 10 times already about the TACTICS involved in the relation between gay marriage equality and gay civil rights in the USA. You may not agree with these tactics. I do. The mainstream American gay lobbies do and I believe the vast majority of gay Americans who care about the future of gay civil rights in the USA do too. It wasn't the only choice of tactics. It WAS intentional. There is widespread belief by Americans that based on OUR playing field, we are achieving MASSIVE and QUICK success, beyond our wildest dreams at this stage. But think what you like. If you care all that much about American's well being, I suggest you directly contact the major gay LOBBYING organizations in the USA with your outsider suggestions. I am sure they all have email contacts and your email will be screened by at least some cute intern. Yes for better or worse, having strong organized POLITICAL lobbies that are WELL FUNDED is the name of the game and gay Americans have got that now. It wasn't always so. Cheers.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Sorry to hear that. So universal equal rights are not the gold standard, but the religious terminology "marriage" is?

Sad, sad state of affairs.

OTM, bear in mind that what is posted here, unless it's supported by anything else, is only one person's "OPINION".

Whether some people like it or not, the "FACT" is that civil unions are still an option in some States, still being pursued in Congress by both Democrats and Republicans with the Uniting American Families Act, and still very likely to be supported by the Republicans (who won nearly 50% of the popular vote in 2012) in the next elections.

Whether any of those options come to fruition is a different matter, as is speculation on when genuine equal rights for gays will become any sort of reality in the US - at the moment around 30% of American gays have marriage-equal rights at federal level, but very few even have the most basic protection at federal level against discrimination. The danger for American gays is that the "marriage equality" movement is drowning out the "gay rights" movement and the "goal" is being forgotten by some - but fortunately, and demonstrably, not by all.

Thanks for the clarification. I did get confused for a moment.

[onthemoon]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

"Marriage" is the relic. Come and dare to join join the 21st century!

Edited August 14, 2013 by onthemoon

[LeCharivari]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

"Marriage" is the relic. Come and dare to join join the 21st century!

That's certainly what it looks like in those countries with both "marriage" and a less formal option for all (regardless of sexual preference) which gives equal rights and responsibilities.

[Jingthing]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Sorry to hear that. So universal equal rights are not the gold standard, but the religious terminology "marriage" is?

Sad, sad state of affairs.

OTM, bear in mind that what is posted here, unless it's supported by anything else, is only one person's "OPINION".

Whether some people like it or not, the "FACT" is that civil unions are still an option in some States, still being pursued in Congress by both Democrats and Republicans with the Uniting American Families Act, and still very likely to be supported by the Republicans (who won nearly 50% of the popular vote in 2012) in the next elections.

Whether any of those options come to fruition is a different matter, as is speculation on when genuine equal rights for gays will become any sort of reality in the US - at the moment around 30% of American gays have marriage-equal rights at federal level, but very few even have the most basic protection at federal level against discrimination. The danger for American gays is that the "marriage equality" movement is drowning out the "gay rights" movement and the "goal" is being forgotten by some - but fortunately, and demonstrably, not by all.

Thanks for the clarification. I did get confused for a moment.

It's not clarification. It's obfuscation. He's talking about something COMPLETE DIFFERENT than the civil unions WITHIN the states. Yes, there are four left, down from nine. The direction is ZERO is that is a fact.

[Jingthing]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

"Marriage" is the relic. Come and dare to join join the 21st century!

It's not REQUIRED. The point is FULL equality for gay Americans under the law. Exact SAME choices.

[Jingthing]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

"Marriage" is the relic. Come and dare to join join the 21st century!

That's certainly what it looks like in those countries with both "marriage" and a less formal option for all (regardless of sexual preference) which gives equal rights and responsibilities.

I was speaking ONLY about the USA and civil unions are going out rapidly.

[Scott]

This thread is about Mexico and the thread is going very far off-topic.

I will again post, and I am aware that this is off-topic, that under federal guidelines for immigration and resettlement a marriage is what a community deems to be a marriage. Marriage does not have to religious, it does not have to be civil. It does not have to be condoned by any gov't. My guess is that over time, you will see any couple in a civil union being considered as married if they come from an area where civil union was the primary method of gays to form a partnerships.

[Jingthing]

Yes but immigration policies about recognition of FOREIGN relationship legalization options is an entirely different thing than relationship legalization legalities WITHIN a country. At the current time in the USA, there are only FOUR U.S. states with civil union option, down from NINE, these are for same sex couples not a European idea of another option for ALL, and there is active movement to END that in those remaining four states. No new states are EVER expected to create a NEW U.S. state civil union option. So even though people keep getting these two totally separate things totally confused as if they are the same thing, the reality is that WITHIN the U.S. at the state level the civil union institution is a historical relic, and it's very unfortunate that four states are still stuck with it as they wait for the UPGRADE to full marriage equality to take place. It would very surprising if even one U.S. civil union state is left within 10 years, probably at least 3 will have upgraded within 5 years and 2 within 3 years.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's not clarification. It's obfuscation. He's talking about something COMPLETE DIFFERENT than the civil unions WITHIN the states. Yes, there are four left, down from nine. The direction is ZERO is that is a fact.

If we're talking about the "direction" as being the "only way" that America can and will go to get to that objective its not a fact or even a factoid. Its one person's personal opinion which contradicts the public record of Bills currently being read by Congress and cases currently being heard by US courts brought post SCotUS.

... and I AM also talking about "civil unions WITHIN the states".

Just to clarify the FACTS:

Legal challenges ARE underway in US Courts NOW, as a result of the SCotUS ruling, to give CIVIL UNIONS in New Jersey and Illinois the same federal rights as marriage - http://equalityontrial.com/category/civil-unions/

UAFA specifically covers "permanent partners" who have a civil union, or the equivalent, not a marriage, regardless of whether those civil unions were made in the US or outside it. The Bill can be read at the Library of Congress - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.519:

[Jingthing]

It's not clarification. It's obfuscation. He's talking about something COMPLETE DIFFERENT than the civil unions WITHIN the states. Yes, there are four left, down from nine. The direction is ZERO is that is a fact.

If we're talking about the "direction" as being the "only way" that America can and will go to get to that objective its not a fact or even a factoid. Its one person's personal opinion which contradicts the public record of Bills currently being read by Congress and cases currently being heard by US courts brought post SCotUS.

... and I AM also talking about "civil unions WITHIN the states".

Just to clarify the FACTS:

Legal challenges ARE underway in US Courts NOW, as a result of the SCotUS ruling, to give CIVIL UNIONS in New Jersey and Illinois the same federal rights as marriage - http://equalityontrial.com/category/civil-unions/

UAFA specifically covers "permanent partners" who have a civil union, or the equivalent, not a marriage, regardless of whether those civil unions were made in the US or outside it. The Bill can be read at the Library of Congress - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.519:

Those two states have an excellent chance of UPGRADING to MARRIAGE equality in the next few years. They will of course eventually do so. You speak of two of the four EXISTING U.S civil union states left out of the originally high NINE. I'll give you your point that civil unions have any long term future in the USA (internally) if there is EVER a NEW U.S. state starting a NEW civil union law as opposed to marriage equality. I feel super confident about this. Good luck!

There is really no logic in disproportionately fixating on an institution that is clearly GOING OUT in the USA (has already mostly gone out) when the marriage equality thing has been trending fantastically. I do understand the concern for the Americans in the four states in civil unions. I also wonder what percentage will simply decide to GET MARRIED in a a MARRIAGE equality state while they wait for their states of residence to upgrade.

For people who like civil unions vs. marriage ... great. If you're American you have a few more years until all the four states UPGRADE. If you're in a country that has civil unions, enjoy! But in the long run, my estimate 10 years at most, NOBODY will be entering into a new civil union and ALL of the existing one will have been upgraded. Seems an odd priority to focus on this thing going away, that gay Americans NEVER preferred in the first place!

ALSO, in response to this assertion of yours LC:

Legal challenges ARE underway in US Courts NOW, as a result of the SCotUS ruling, to give CIVIL UNIONS in New Jersey and Illinois the same federal rights as marriage - http://equalityontri...y/civil-unions/

well, I read the link and I saw NOTHING that actually confirms your assertion. This is interesting actually. Can you please EXPLICITLY spell out this out because I don't see that in the link. I kind of see the opposite, which I already knew, the the American gay MARRIAGE EQUALITY movement is USING the lack of federal recognition of anything but MARRIAGES as a strong TOOL to legally push for MARRIAGE EQUALITY (and the end of civil unions). But this is another ls in translation moment. I am not accusing you of lying, so don't have a hissy fit, I just don't see what you say in the link in the link so I'd you to be more specific.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I understand your point of view entirely over gay marriage. it is abundantly clear. I am not saying it is wrong "for Americans". I am not pushing or promoting civil unions. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. All I am saying is that that is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. While I am sure some people agree with you and some disagree that doesn't make it a FACT.

No, I can't "EXPLICITLY spell this out" because this is the Gay Forum not an English language forum. What I can do is copy some of the relevant parts here and leave you and anyone reading them to draw their own conclusions based on their mastery (or otherwise) of the language.

If what you see is "what you already knew" then there seems little point in explaining it further to you if your mind is already made up, but I'll try.

At its simplest and most basic, there is no legal justification for NOT paying benefits to those with a post-SCotUS Civil Union while "any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact," - that gives those registering Civil Unions in New Jersey and Illinois LESS rights than they would have had before SCotUS. One court could interpret that to mean that States should have to have same-sex marriages (if the court has that authority) while another could interpret it to mean that civil unions should be given a similar "status" to marriage.

As I have explained before, SCotUS did not "rule" on that and left that option open. Because these are cases for summary judgement and so far only briefs and motions have been filed it is impossible to say what further submissions will be requested or made so it is impossible to rule any option in or out - that is why I have said these cases are ONGOING.

Please note that as you have repeatedly either refused or simply failed to give any links to support any claims you have made in this forum and elsewhere when requested by me this is the last time I will be doing you that courtesy until that changes.

In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write:

Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down.

The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

....

Before the Windsor decision, same-sex couples in states with marriage equality (for instance, New York) and in civil unions in states like New Jersey were treated the same by the federal government: namely, their marriages were ignored. Although the CURC held that New Jersey’s civil unions did not grant full equality even under state law the way that equal marriage rights would, there was a case to be made–pre-DOMA–that civil unions in New Jersey weren’t all that different from marriage equality in New York. As Lambda Legal writes, that is no longer true:

[A]fter Windsor, there simply can be no question but that same-sex couples in New Jersey are denied the equal benefits expressly guaranteed by Lewis, thus inflicting precisely the indignity which the New Jersey Supreme Court, in that opinion, abhorred.

Lambda Legal is referring here, of course, to the federal benefits which the U.S. government is now in the process of extending to married same-sex couples in the wake of the DOMA decision. In other words, civil unions in New Jersey now prohibit same-sex couples from accessing federal benefits–since the federal government does not recognize couples in civil unions as eligible for such benefits–which these couples could obtain with New Jersey marriage licenses.

The new memos from the federal government echo the facts Lambda Legal has presented, and they seem to offer evidence of the stark legal differences between civil unions and domestic partnerships on the one hand, and marriage on the other. It adds more evidence, from the federal government itself, that the states which continue to offer only civil unions or domestic partnerships but not marriage are not treating same-sex couples similarly to opposite-sex couples.

[onthemoon]

JT seems to be the only one who thinks that "marriage" is superior to "civil union". He argues that the reason is that the US Federal Government discriminates against civil unions. I, on the other hand, prefer "civil union" with the same legal rights. I said that earlier.

I am totally confused why JT is not promoting the US Federal Government to apply the same (gold) standard to both terminologies. In fact, I see no reason why the term "upgrade" is used when changing the terminology from "marriage" to "civil union". The fight should be for gay rights, not for a terminology, and there seems to be something wrong going on in the US right now. JT even says he does not want to see any more states promote civil unions, he calls that a relic rather than an upgrade to the 21 century. I don't follow this line of thinking, and I don't see JT nor myself changing our opinion.

We have all made our opinions clear. The only fact in this thread is that the US Government does not treat people equally. Some (JT comes to mind) like it, some don't.

Well, and since this seems to be a domestic US discussion anyway, I'm out of here.

[Jingthing]

This is so hilarious. I find it hard to believe y'all don't get this.

The pro gay rights movement in America is fighting for MARRIAGE equality.

It is NOT fighting for equality of treatment for civil unions at the federal level.

It is USING the reality of non-federal recognition of second rate civil unions to fight for FULL marriages equality.

What that means is conversion of the four remaining states with civil unions to MARRIAGE. That WILL happen. You can bet the house on it.

There also will be NO new states with civil unions. Don't bet the house but you can bet the car. You'll see. I KNOW I'm right. Just wait.

Over time, most probably with a final decisive supreme court case marriage equality will be mandated for ALL states.

Having STATE civil unions having the same federal recognition as marriage RETARDS the fight for marriage equality.

It would be really really really bad to have any new states getting civil unions; it would suggest to the public that separate but equal is OK, when to American civil rights people, it is NEVER OK. It would confuse and dilute the clearly focused goal of 50 state MARRIAGE equality.

Anyone reading the links from LC WITHOUT HIS SPIN would get that. He insists on spinning their meaning in a bizarre way that has nothing to do with the reality of the GOALS.

He says he presents facts. I say he presents pure distorted spin. MARRIAGE EQUALITY is what gay Americans WANT. We insist on FULL EQUALITY. Period. That is the goal and we are winning.

He's trying to push this OBVIOUS lie that Obama isn't full on board for gay civil rights when ACTUALLY the non-equality of those few remaining states with civil unions is VERY HELPFUL for the actual goals of the gay civil rights movement in the USA.

The people who don't seem to get this appear to be not Americans. Any gay Americans here that actually agree with this strange spin from non-American, hyper critical of Obama/gay marriage equality movement critics, I'd actually find that interesting to hear from such people, if many really exist, which I seriously DOUBT.

I'd also like to see even ONE LINK from an AMERICAN pro gay rights source that SPINS these "facts" the way LC does. I have never seen one, I asked before for some from LC and none were ever offered. That folks should tell you something about what is the truth and what is SPIN.

If LC's odd spin was really a thing of any relevance to American gay rights advocates, it would easy to find MANY links voicing the same odd spin. I challenge y'all to produce even one. My point is we are debating about something OFF THE RADAR in the U.S. and something that will NEVER be on the radar as before long the four remaining civil union states will have upgraded to marriage ...

Be clear these links I am requesting from AMERICAN gay civil rights forces that might support LC's position (which I don't think EXIST) they MUST be written AFTER the recent SUPREME COURT gay marriage equality victories. Otherwise, they are not relevant.

Cheers.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...

Well, and since this seems to be a domestic US discussion anyway, I'm out of here.

It probably should be at least based on the level of real understanding of the INTERNAL issues from non-Americans here.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

JT seems to be the only one who thinks that "marriage" is superior to "civil union". He argues that the reason is that the US Federal Government discriminates against civil unions. I, on the other hand, prefer "civil union" with the same legal rights. I said that earlier.

I am totally confused why JT is not promoting the US Federal Government to apply the same (gold) standard to both terminologies. In fact, I see no reason why the term "upgrade" is used when changing the terminology from "marriage" to "civil union". The fight should be for gay rights, not for a terminology, and there seems to be something wrong going on in the US right now. JT even says he does not want to see any more states promote civil unions, he calls that a relic rather than an upgrade to the 21 century. I don't follow this line of thinking, and I don't see JT nor myself changing our opinion.

We have all made our opinions clear. The only fact in this thread is that the US Government does not treat people equally. Some (JT comes to mind) like it, some don't.

Well, and since this seems to be a domestic US discussion anyway, I'm out of here.

OTM, you are being misled again and in the same way ... and this is not just a "domestic US discussion" as it is particularly relevant to Mexico hence this thread.

The term "upgrade" is NOT used when changing the terminology from civil unions to marriage, except by individuals who see it that way. Although I have not checked every piece of legislation in every country and every US State where it applies, as far as I am aware the terminology used is ALWAYS to CONVERT or MERGE civil unions to/with marriage, NEVER to "UPGRADE".

The only exception is in countries like France with a two-tier system open to both same and opposite sex couples - particularly relevant to this thread as Mexico's civil unions are loosely based on the French PACs, rather than marriage as is more generally the rule.

It would be very unfair to either condemn (or support) any country, government or group based just on ONE person's unsubstantiated opinion, however much they may claim to represent others or to know what is "going on".

The actual terminology used in the US as at 26 June is shown here - http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx with examples as follows (I have enboldened the terminology used) :

Six states adopted civil unions available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Civil unions provide legal recognition to the couples’ relationship and provides legal rights to the partners similar to those accorded to spouses in marriages. (Delaware and Rhode Island have now replaced their civil union provisions with same-sex marriage that will take effect on July 1 and Aug. 1, 2013, respectively.)

On May 7, 2013, the Delaware legislature adopted a same-sex marriage law that will convert civil unions to marriages. The law takes effect on July 1, 2013.

On May 2, 2013, the Rhode Island legislature adopted a same-sex marriage law that will convert civil unions to marriages. The law takes effect on Aug. 1, 2013.

The following states had civil unions that were converted to marriages: ...

The New Hampshire legislature passed same sex marriage legislation, HB 0436, in May 2009 which will go into effect on January 1, 2010. All civil unions will be merged into marriage no later than January, 2011, unless otherwise annulled or dissolved. New Hampshire will still recognize civil unions from other states.

Connecticut now allows same sex marriage. On October 1, 2010, civil unions will cease to be provided and existing civil unions will be automatically converted to marriages.

(Washington) Any state registered same-sex domestic partnership where neither party is sixty-two years of age or older, is automatically converted into a marriage as of June 30, 2014, unless dissolved or converted to marriage prior to that date.

[Jingthing]

Oh please. Pedantic nit picking again. If you were in a civil union in Connecticut that carried NO federal recognition and your civil union was "converted" to marriage with federal recognition, you bloody well would FEEL your relationship legalization status had been upgraded! Honestly, wouldn't you? The U.S. internal civil rights movement is focused on MARRIAGE equality, whether foreigners like it or not. Gay Americans like it. That is not only my opinion. You can see that for yourself just reading the news from the U.S. Separate but equal goes against the grain of American civil rights core values. Yes, civil unions were tried originally in 9 states (now down to 4) because that was as good as it got in those states and even state gay marriages were basically BOGUS because they had no federal recognition. Now it's different. We've got federal recognition for ALL marriages in ALL states so gay people are demanding and WILL win full 50 state gay MARRIAGE equality. Foreigners if they weren't strangely biased against Americans would be CONGRATULATING gay Americans now, not inventing these non-issues that aren't relevant to gay Americans in the least.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

(edited) ...

He's trying to push this OBVIOUS lie that Obama isn't full on board for gay civil rights when ACTUALLY the non-equality of those few remaining states with civil unions is VERY HELPFUL for the actual goals of the gay civil rights movement in the USA.

...

I'd also like to see even ONE LINK from an AMERICAN pro gay rights source that SPINS these "facts" the way LC does. I have never seen one, I asked before for some from LC and none were ever offered. That folks should tell you something about what is the truth and what is SPIN.

If LC's odd spin was really a thing of any relevance to American gay rights advocates, it would easy to find MANY links voicing the same odd spin. I challenge y'all to produce even one. My point is we are debating about something OFF THE RADAR in the U.S. and something that will NEVER be on the radar as before long the four remaining civil union states will have upgraded to marriage ...

Be clear these links I am requesting from AMERICAN gay civil rights forces that might support LC's position (which I don't think EXIST) they MUST be written AFTER the recent SUPREME COURT gay marriage equality victories. Otherwise, they are not relevant.

Cheers.

"He's trying to push this OBVIOUS lie that Obama isn't full on board for gay civil rights when ACTUALLY the non-equality of those few remaining states with civil unions is VERY HELPFUL for the actual goals of the gay civil rights movement in the USA."

Totally untrue.

I have NEVER suggested in any way that Obama is not "full on board for gay civil rights". Any "link" to any of my posts to support that?

What I am "trying to push" is that YOUR VIEWS MAY NOT BE OBAMA'S VIEWS since, as far as I am aware, HE HAS NEVER SAID WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

"I'd also like to see even ONE LINK from an AMERICAN pro gay rights source that SPINS these "facts" the way LC does." etc, etc

I have NEVER suggested that my views represent those of any "AMERICAN pro gay rights source" so there would be no possible reason for me to provide such a link.

YOU claim to speak for "AMERICAN pro gay rights" groups (and even to speak for long dead American pro gay rights activists) so IT IS REALLY UP TO YOU TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, to show that your views really are those of Obama, American pro gay rights groups, mainstream American gays, etc. So far you haven't done so.

[LeCharivari]

...

Well, and since this seems to be a domestic US discussion anyway, I'm out of here.

It probably should be at least based on the level of real understanding of the INTERNAL issues from non-Americans here.

Why should any "real understanding of the INTERNAL issues" be a given for Americans rather than "non-Americans"?

A level playing field where claims have to be supported by facts rather than opinion and abuse would seem more appropriate.

[Jingthing]

More spin. Not worth my time to play petty pedantic games that are basically just an ENDLESS LOOP. My position is clear. Already stated multiple times.

No, you don't have to agree with it.

"Debating" on this absurd level is clearly a BLACK HOLE. I may have too much time on my hands, but not THAT much time.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Oh please. Pedantic nit picking again. If you were in a civil union in Connecticut that carried NO federal recognition and your civil union was "converted" to marriage with federal recognition, you bloody well would FEEL your relationship legalization status had been upgraded! Honestly, wouldn't you? The U.S. internal civil rights movement is focused on MARRIAGE equality, whether foreigners like it or not. Gay Americans like it. That is not only my opinion. You can see that for yourself just reading the news from the U.S. Separate but equal goes against the grain of American civil rights core values. Yes, civil unions were tried originally in 9 states (now down to 4) because that was as good as it got in those states and even state gay marriages were basically BOGUS because they had no federal recognition. Now it's different. We've got federal recognition for ALL marriages in ALL states so gay people are demanding and WILL win full 50 state gay MARRIAGE equality. Foreigners if they weren't strangely biased against Americans would be CONGRATULATING gay Americans now, not inventing these non-issues that aren't relevant to gay Americans in the least.

'If you were in a civil union in Connecticut that carried NO federal recognition and your civil union was "converted" to marriage with federal recognition, you bloody well would FEEL your relationship legalization status had been upgraded! Honestly, wouldn't you?"

Yes. Just as I would feel "upgraded" if my civil union had been granted the same federal recognition without being converted. Marriage is an "upgrade" in the US, but the point is that civil unions COULD also be upgraded (no need to tell us that you don't think that is the way to go - I think we've got that message) but despite the SCotUS decision that left that option open they haven't been.

So far you have only produced ONE link to support your claim that what you are saying is in any way representative of American views ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/627776-gay-marriage-cases-soon-to-be-heard-by-american-supreme-court-its-complicated/page-5 ) and when read that turned out to say that "the empirical evidence does not bear this out". (same link, two posts on).

If you are so positive that this is "not only my (your) opinion" and it is that of Obama, American gay rights groups, mainstream American gays, etc, etc, then produce some evidence where they have said that civil unions are a "relic", etc, etc.

I think the American expression would be "put up or shut up".

[LeCharivari]

More spin. Not worth my time to play petty pedantic games that are basically just an ENDLESS LOOP. My position is clear. Already stated multiple times.

No, you don't have to agree with it.

"Debating" on this absurd level is clearly a BLACK HOLE. I may have too much time on my hands, but not THAT much time.

I agree 100% - YOUR position is clear.

[Jingthing]

...

I think the American expression would be "put up or shut up".

You just want to argue for whatever strange agenda motivations I can't even imagine.

My position has already been stated multiple times and backed up with evidence (most strong, 9 civil union states to 4 VERY RAPIDLY). If people want to do more research, google is your friend.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...

I think the American expression would be "put up or shut up".

You just want to argue for whatever strange agenda motivations I can't even imagine.

My position has already been stated multiple times and backed up with evidence (most strong, 9 civil union states to 4 VERY RAPIDLY). If people want to do more research, google is your friend.

I understand YOUR position ... always have.

[Jingthing]

Yes my position is that I am representing the feelings of gay Americans a heck of a lot better than one foreigner who seems to find pleasure in denigrating the American gay civil rights movement which again, like it or not, has CHOSEN the tactic of focusing on gay MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Since this thread is completely off-topic it will be closed.