State of the Marriage Union
Here are some facts gleaned from the May 20th issue of The Economist
- The State Dept of the United States will pay to relocate an employee’s heterosexual partner, or even an employee’s pet but not a homosexual partner.
- 18 States in the United States have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. And in Ohio and Michigan there are lawmakers suing public employers who offer domestic partner benefits, saying that it violates their state constitutions ban on “marriage-like” relationships. Including Ohio and Michigan, eleven states have language legislating against “marriage-like” arrangements in their constitutions.
- Seven more states have anti-gay marriage issues on the ballot for the upcoming November elections. Of these seven, five would like to ban “marriage-like” relationships.
- Even when private companies offer domestic partner benefits, the Federal Government discriminates against gay couples because individuals still have to pay federal taxes on spousal health benefits. E.g. even if you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts, you still have to pay taxes on all your spouse’s health benefits because the federal government does not recognise your marriage
“Marriage-like” relationships. How’s that for same but different?
And then there’s this, as reported by LifeSiteNews.com on May 19
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051903.html
Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Approved By Senate Committee
By Gudrun Schultz
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) -A U.S. senate committee voted to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on to the full Senate Thursday, amid intense debate and flaring tempers, reported the AP yesterday. The panel decided in favor of the amendment in a 10-8 vote along party lines.
The measure would prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages by amending the constitution to explicitly define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” the measure states. “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” (....excerpted. Follow the link above for the full article.)
- The State Dept of the United States will pay to relocate an employee’s heterosexual partner, or even an employee’s pet but not a homosexual partner.
- 18 States in the United States have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. And in Ohio and Michigan there are lawmakers suing public employers who offer domestic partner benefits, saying that it violates their state constitutions ban on “marriage-like” relationships. Including Ohio and Michigan, eleven states have language legislating against “marriage-like” arrangements in their constitutions.
- Seven more states have anti-gay marriage issues on the ballot for the upcoming November elections. Of these seven, five would like to ban “marriage-like” relationships.
- Even when private companies offer domestic partner benefits, the Federal Government discriminates against gay couples because individuals still have to pay federal taxes on spousal health benefits. E.g. even if you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts, you still have to pay taxes on all your spouse’s health benefits because the federal government does not recognise your marriage
“Marriage-like” relationships. How’s that for same but different?
And then there’s this, as reported by LifeSiteNews.com on May 19
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051903.html
Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Approved By Senate Committee
By Gudrun Schultz
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) -A U.S. senate committee voted to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on to the full Senate Thursday, amid intense debate and flaring tempers, reported the AP yesterday. The panel decided in favor of the amendment in a 10-8 vote along party lines.
The measure would prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages by amending the constitution to explicitly define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” the measure states. “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” (....excerpted. Follow the link above for the full article.)