Currently, same-sex couples cannot get Federal recognition for tax purposes and social security survivor benefits, even if they are married in Massachusetts, and the question of what happens to their marriage when one or both partners move to another state is also troubling to same-sex marriages. These are big problems that do not look to be solved anytime soon, and it is these older couples that really need these benefits. We should examine every proposal that might make this possible.
OK, so here is my plan to do that: We do it as part of a compromise to resolve the marriage debate. Same-sex couples would give up conception rights and the name marriage, in exchange for federal recognition of civil unions as if they were marriages, and hopefully other states would be more inclined to set up civil unions just like marriage but without conception rights. see my website www.eggandsperm.org for more information about what “conception rights” means.
If you were in the position to sign off on this compromise, would you? Remember that if you reject it, you would be trading away very meaningful and valuable benefits that thousands of same-sex couples really need, just to hang onto conception rights and the word marriage.
The key, I think, is not having the word marriage, but the equality it brings. I’ve been thinking about this within our Gay-Straight Aliiance. Having another word that means the same thing still creates a different class of citizens. It is more than a difference in semantics.
Exactly, there is a difference in rights. If a person couples with another person of the other sex, they have a right to conceive together. If they couple with anything else, they don’t have a right to conceive together. Different rights mean they should have different names.
Every person has the exact same, full right to conceive. No person has the right to reproduce except by naturally joining equally and consentually and publicly and legally with someone of the other sex.
Not a chance. Equality is equality. And we will win this fight someday.
but you just wont go away. What you are proposing is disgusting. Ive worked with children that DSS has taken away from “traditional” parents for a long time. Often times I wish that their parents would have their “conception rights” taken away. Would you or will you agree to take away those rights from parents who abuse, burn, torture and even kill their children? I can’t tell you how many times a family will have their parental rights terminated and then have another child only to do it again. What is your problem with having two loving parents no matter what sex raising a child
See, that’s the point. A marriage, no matter how terrible a married couple is, as long as they are married, they have a right to keep conceiving and giving birth to more children. They even have a right to seek medical help to conceive and maintain their pregnancy and give birth. They are married. And we all have a right to marry the person we want to, with the exception of those supportable basis like risks of birth defects and social/psychological problems.
<
p>
But you are correct, their marriage does NOT give them parenting rights, as we routinely remove babies from the homes of married parents that do not care for their children properly. Parenting rights are given to people (singles, couples, households, communes?) that courts decide would be the best parent for that child at this time.
as demanding a right to conceive children together. Well, there is a supportable basis to not give it to you (or rather, to the scientists that would do it with DNA donated to them by you and your partner). It is unethical and uneceassary. because it puts all the risks onto a nonconsensual party, and because love makes a family, not a genetic connection. And because it’ll cost too much, meanwhile our sewers are crumbling and we’re going to run out of fresh water in 18 years.
<
p>
And don’t forget the part of the compromise you are giving up: federal recognition for civil unions, and a better chance for civil union recognition in all fifty states. You really want to sacrifice that – right now – for some science fictin fantasy that no one in their right mind would subject their children to? Are you crazy?
And don’t forget the part of the compromise you are giving up: federal recognition for civil unions.
<
p>
Where exactly are these federal civil unions that I’m supposedly giving up? Other than in your imagination, I mean.
<
p>
How about you go get that law passed in Congress, and then you can come back and deliver your condescending lectures about how unreasonable our “demands” are. At this point you’re just playing offensive mind-games.
I asked, if you had the power, would you accept the compromise. If it were up to you, would you choose, right now, federal recognition of those older committed same-sex couples relationships, or conception rights for you?
posted a diary on this so-called conception issue and it received much scorn and ridicule. Are you going to do this every two days?
Many of which didn’t make sense, although for such a bizarre notion that is to be expected. I thought human cloning was already illegal..
heh, i meant to post that “every tem ninutes asshole” comment to the reply above yours. Pretty funny, no?
<
p>
To your point, human cloning is not illegal (though nuclear transfer may be prohibited by some regulation, which is required for cloning), because the Brownback law has not been enacted. But even that law would not ban same-sex conception using genetic engineering or stem cells.
asshole
John, even if you got your unecessary conception law passed, what makes you think that all 50 states would then magically pass civil union laws? Do you think that this is the one issue holding the other states back from supporting civil unions? I don’t think so. But if you really want to convince the United States to go along with your master plan, perhaps you should start in some state other than Massachusetts because we already have legal gay marriage.
But getting the Federal recognition would be classic political compromise, each side giving up something of little consequence, and getting something very important. Both sides could come to the table on this in Congress. The question for you is, would you want them to make this compromise? Would you say, “if you give same-sex couples federal recognition and benefits, and work to get civil unions enacted in all fifty states, we will give up the demand for conception rights?” Or are conception rights today more important to you than federal recognition today? Leave the name of the union out of it for now, and just think about that trade. Then, once that trade has been made, think about why it makes sense to give a different name to the union that has conception rights compared to unions that are prohibited from attempting to conceive together. Don’t forget that the traditional marriage side is not very interested in giving federal recognition, and aren’t going to think that banning same-sex conception – which can’t be done anyway and probably never wil be possible – is worth half as much as what they feel they will be giving up – unless they keep the name marriage.
<
p>
And I do think that all the states would be much more likely to enact civil unions if they had a clear distinction between tme and marraige. Civil unions would even be possible in all of the states that have recently enacted laws against civil unions that are substantially the same as marriages.
I haven’t seen a lot of that going on in this country lately. I think I’ll stop here. You are convinced your plan is the way to go and I’m not going to change your mind about it no matter what I say.
<
p>
Perhaps you should try and put your compromise skills into working out a Middle East Peace Plan.
Think about the aging same-sex married couples, that cannot get each others social security survivor benefits. All you have to do is say “I think it is more important to get federal recognition than it is to pursue same-sex conception technology.” Maybe enough of you will say that for it to happen, or maybe it won’t. But what is the cost of supporting it, of saying that it would be a good thing to happen? Do you really want same-sex conception rights that bad? That’s amazing. Besides, there is nothing in the compromise that says that we couldn’t turn civil unions into marriages in ten or twenty years if we decide to allow same-sex conception.