If you need cash now, we offer fast payday loans up to $1000. The process takes less than 3 minutes.
Payday advance types of loans usually require the entire amount to be repaid on the next pay period. No credit or faxing needed for loans under $1000. Bad credit OK! Instant Decision; you can start today and have the cash you need quickly
We are an immediate loan specialist in Cuyahoga Falls, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to Cuyahoga Falls occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
If they guarantee the same rights, why isn't that good enough? I really don't see the big deal with having a different name for it...I mean, gay couples ARE different. We are a small minority, we aren't the norm and I'd honestly be thrilled if my state legalized civil unions. I just don't get why its so important to so may gay people that they be allowed to get 'married'? Isn't it the rights they're after, not a stupid title?
I'm with you--it's marriage under a different name. But certain courts have decided that under a different name it's not the same. Here in California where I live, you need a driver's license to cash a check, to identify yourself to a cop, even to enter certain govt. buildings. If you don't drive, you can still get a 'license'--you get the picture and all that, but it's just meant as an Cuyahoga Falls card, you can't use it to drive. I thought Civil Unions would work about the same. But they don't really. Civil unions are just something for over-cautious Democrats to advocate (like Obama). It's like Republicans going after the Christian Right vote by saying 'Well, personally I'm against abortion. I think it's murder! But I don't think it's anything for the govt. to be involved in." These are 'safe' positions, calculated to capture votes on one side without unduly angering the other side. People have said they favor civil unions, but they haven't actually been implemented anywhere, at this point the whole idea is tentative. The way I see it, there are two things we call 'marriage'. The word has two completely separate meanings, two separate functions. And sometimes we confuse these meanings. Sometimes on purpose. One meaning is a religious sacrament. Two people stand up at the front of a church and a clergyman mumbles some words over them, and then they're considered to be joined by God, one person in the eyes of God. The other meaning is a civil partnership. Two people enter into a legal relationship allowing them to co-mingle finances, make certain decisions for one another, own property together, etc. The religious meaning, churches have a right to decide that without any interference from government. They can marry who they like, exclude who they like, it's entirely up to them. But the civil meaning, that's a right of citizenship, a 'civil right'. In the US we have only one class of citizenship--every citizen has exactly the same rights and privileges of citizenship. That includes gays. In fact it really has nothing to do with sex at all. It's just an economic partnership. Suppose two old widows get to be great friends and decide to pool their resources and buy a house to live in together, to become a 'family'. They should be able to become 'partners', to own the house together, to visit one another in the hospital, to make end-of-life decisions for one another, to share a joint bank account, etc. etc. It has nothing to do with sex or reproduction, it's just an arrangement of convenience to the both of them. Why not?
It's because they want it to be legal so that it's "real" I guess and so that there are proof that they are a couple. Plus legal couples can do things that civil couples cannot ex: file tax together, adopt a kid ect. Yeah I kind of agree with you. Back than marriages were not even legal. There were no legalize marriage, it's just a ceremony and everyone knows that you are married and that's it, you are now officially husband and wife. That's how it is in the beginning and the way it was originally. Nothing is legalized and no paper work require or anything like that. It's still like that in many countries over seas. Yes they are after the right to get married. I guess now a day it has to be legalized in order for it to be considered as "real" and gay people want that, they want their marriage to be considered as real by others and to be taken seriously and to have proof of their marriage. A civil union cannot provide that.
Civil Unions are not a bonding, everlasting commitment to a loved one like marriage is. A Civil Union or a Domestic Partnership is a contract. Thus, it isn't the same as marriage. In addition, Civil Unions are only recognized in the same state the couple signed the contract in. If the couple were to move to another state, they would no longer be recognized as financially being together. So, not only can they not make the 1 commitment of forever, they also can't even sign a contract and have it valid in other parts of the same country. That sound fair to you? A civil union is a paper you sign. A marriage is a commitment. Which has more meaning for 2 people who love each other?
Thank you for the question. It seems to me that in order to answer that question I have to divide it in half. I would ask anyone who starts reading this to read the entire answer, both parts. 1. Civil unions as a governmental function -- I absolutely agree with you. The secular government of our secular country should not be in the business of marrying people -- ANY PEOPLE. The government should offer a package of benefits to committed couples of whatever type -- and should call it something, and civil unions work as well as anything else. Marriage should remain a religious commitment and ceremony. The government's only part should be the granting of that package of benefits - which could be granted in the same manner that a marriage license is now granted. Which brings us to ... 2. Marriage, as a function of the churches and other religious groupings should NOT be interfered with, by anyone. That means that no Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister should ever be pressured to marry gay couples. ... It also means, in a nation with no established religion and religious freedom, something else however. I ask that you think about this seriously. Let your automatic reaction rage first, then sit back and think about it, as an American. It also should mean that those priests, ministers, and rabbis from sects that support gay marriage and believe it to be as holy as straight marriage (among officially recognized denominational groups you can start with: The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, the North American Spiritualist Church, the Unity Church, the Congregations of Reform Judaism, the Correllian Nativist Church International, and majorities of congregations in several denominations that leave it up to individual parishes to decide whether or not they honor gay marriage as holy [there you can start with the Congregationalists and the Episcopalians, the Conservative Egalitarian Jewish Congregations and the Covenant of the Goddess]. ) I or anyone else like me has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to determine what YOUR priest can do; but contrawise, you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to decide what my priest can do. Your sacraments and your canon law must be respected by your coreligionists -- but likewise our sacraments and our canon law must be respected by my coreligionists. That is the nature of freedom of religion - and that is really what this whole debate is about, gays are incidental to it - a convenient cipher that can be used to argue a very different point -- that being -- does one group of religions, in the United States, despite the founding documents of this great nation, have the right or the power to use the government to enforce their beliefs on another group of religions. The last time this was tested was in the 1800s -- and the decision was clearly yes. It's being tested again, I think the country is more complex now, and it is less likely to succeed in the long run -- the first sign of that was the collapse of the bans on interracial marriage. So call it civil unions if you want -- for everyone -- and let the churches and synagogues and temples and groves DO WHAT THEY EACH WANT TO DO about who to marry -- which then will be a purely religious ceremony. I think if you think it over carefully, you will agree that is a logical solution (and one already proposed in the New York State Assembly by Assemblywoman Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan). ) Thank you again for the question. Kindest thoughts, Hermes
Marriages have 1,000+ rights that you can not receive if you are just civilly married. Look up marriage benefits in your area and look up civil union benefits. Civil unions only have about ten of those 1,000 + benefits. Also some religious gays would like to be able to get married under their god. That is also not possible with unions. You really think if it was the same thing that the anti gays would be fighting so hard to not allow gay marriage? because even they know that it is not the same.
Because a legal, civil marriage and a civil union don't offer the same rights and protections. Also, why should we have to settle for different title just because we're "different"? Even if a civil marriage and a civil union were the same thing (same rights, same protections, etc), why bother with calling it something else? It's ridiculous to give a different name to the exact same.
What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage? The same difference as between "separate but equal" and "equal".
One's marriage and the other civil union isn't really marriage . civil union doesn't even give gay couples the same priviages that marriage give straight couples .
They don't include a few hundred rights that marriages do, they aren't honored in many foreign countries in the same way as marriages, and they aren't recognized on the federal level. Why is it so important for heterosexual people to retain the word 'marriage'?