Civil Unions

[variol son]

It is apparently a big issue in America at the moment, and the legislation has just passed it's first reading in Palriament here in New Zealand, so what do you think? Do you support Civil Unions? Or do you see them as an attempt to undermine the family and reduce the place of marrage in society?

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Baradakas]

As has been stated before, I am a christian. However, I have several gay friends and those I know well, love thier significant others wholeheartedly. I believe Bush's attempt to amend our Constitution to ban gay marriage to be flat out wrong. The only reason the Bible forbade same-sex intercourse was for health issues (humans of that age were ignorant of the dangers). We live in an enlightened (sort of) age where we recognize that some animals as well as humans show tendencies for homosexual behaviour, proving it to be a natural state of existence. Civil unions are only our first step towards complete and utter equal rights, no matter your sexual prference, and I support it wholeheartedly.

[Brinn]

Well said Barad. I'm of a similar mind.

[The Leper Fairy]

Ditto.

[matrixman]

I support it. One of our Prime Ministers once famously said that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

[Furls Fire]

Or in the hearts...

If it takes civil unions to help people who love each be together, then I'm all for it.

"Love is never wrong..."

Peace

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not sure exactly what's being proposed, but I don't think civil unions are right. If some are allowed to be married, while others are only allowed to enter into civil unions, we're talking about discrimination. What's the difference between the two unions? If nothing, then call everybody married. If there ARE differences, if some will not be allowed certain things, or given certain rights or protections, then it's wrong. The thing is, EVERYBODY should have EVERY legal right there is. It should be the default position in every case. A person’s – not a group’s, but a person’s – rights should be taken away only after they have taken away the rights of another. That is, by doing things like stealing and killing. An act should be a crime if it intentionally hurts others in some way, not because it goes against the religious beliefs of the people in charge at the moment, or because they personally find it distasteful.

Sure, any church can refuse to think of a gay marriage the way they think of a hetero marriage, and any religious leader can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for ANY two people for ANY reason. If it goes against their beliefs, they certainly don't have to be involved in it. But there's a big difference between that and making it the law of the land. At least in the US. Freedom and equality are supposed to be the law of the land here. But no application of freedom and equality can justify making it illegal for two gay people who want to spend their lives together – or, as is often the case, have already spend decades in a loving relationship - to do things like visit each other in the hospital during “family only” hours, and receive their partner’s employee benefits.

[Edinburghemma]

Absolutely Fist. Enough said...

[The Leper Fairy]

I heard on the radio somewhere a lady talking about it and she said "Civil rights should never be left up to popular vote. People have forgotten that the constitution is for protecting people from the government, not to take rights away from other people"

[Bucky OHare]

Maybe its because i'm a man, but i just don't get the point of marriage anyway (unless its to take advantage of a tax loophole or something). Who cares if you have a piece of paper that says you are together with a 'Civil Union' surely it makes no practical difference?

[duchess of malfi]

It gives a couple legal protections under the law, such as being recognized as each other's next of kin, being able to be on each other's medical insurance, etc.

The media has given heart rending stories about gay couples, who have been together many years and when one is hospitalized, the biological family can have the other half of the couple removed from the hospital room because there is no legal relationship there. Also, in a case like that, if the couple owns a home or car (or anything, actually) together and it is only in one person's name, the biological family can cut the surviving spouse out of his or her inheritence if one of the couple dies if there is no will.

[Brinn]

Civil unions are the purview of the Government whereas marriages are sanctioned by a church or religion. One carries a legal status while the other carries both a legal and religious status. As long as civil unions are accorded all the same rights and benefits as marriages I don't see any infringement of rights. With that said I don't oppose allowing gay "marriages" either. However, you do need a willing church to perform and sanction the ceremony.

Live and let live.

[variol son]

One of the big arguments here in NZ is that it will give homosexual relationships the "moral equivalent of marriage", but I find this odd since no churches will proform the ceremonies, so they won't be officiallt sanctioned by any god. Besides, if some heterosexuals want to consider their relationship morally superior to mine, I don't mind at all; it's about legal rights and not comparative morality.

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Brinn]

As I've always stated. Individual freedom is the highest good.

[Fist and Faith]

Civil unions are the purview of the Government whereas marriages are sanctioned by a church or religion. One carries a legal status while the other carries both a legal and religious status.

I don't know about this. Atheists can get married, and have the ceremony performed by a Judge, the Captain of a ship (unless that's just rumor ), or a mayor (like Mayor West in New Paltz, NY). And unless the law was changed, in Florida, a Notary Public can perform marriages! Interesting that the people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds never say anything about atheist marriages.

At dictionary.com, the first entry for "marriage" is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. It's first definition is: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The second entry is from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law. It's first definition is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

I think it's a legal issue, and I think the definition needs to be changed. Even if civil unions were identical in every legal consideration, it would be a nasty little form of discrimination. "Well, we're good folk, so we'll give you the legal rights of a marriage. But you're not really married. I hope that's understood." Then we can tell our children, "Yes, we're a free country. Everybody is equal. "

[Fire Daughter]

I know I'm just a kid. But I believe that if people want to be together they should be allowed to be together. Legally, as well as emotionally. Gay marriage, civil union, palimony agreements...all serve that purpose for same sex partners.

Why should any of us care if two people of the same sex wish to live and love together? Aren't we all deserving of happiness and the right to persue it? The Government needs to stay out of people's hearts.

(Yikes!! I'm sounding like my mother!)

[Damelon]

I'm not sure exactly what's being proposed, but I don't think civil unions are right. If some are allowed to be married, while others are only allowed to enter into civil unions, we're talking about discrimination.

Really this cuts to the heart of the problem, as I see it. The word "marriage" is a loaded word in terms of religious usage. What the state performs now to hetrosexual couples could rightly be called a "civil union" rather than marriage, since I know of several instances where this church or another will not recognize a state performed marriage for various religious reasons. Most states, as you rightly state Fist, do not recognize same sex civil unions, but I think the time will come soon when most will, if only for the recognition of the legal rights of the partners.

As for the proposed constitutional amendment, Bush knows full well that it has virtually no chance of succeeding, given the difficulty in getting amendments to the constitution passed. All it does is rally his base before the election.

[The Leper Fairy]

What about polygamy? (sp?) If the husband and all his wives love each other and want to be together, should they be able to be married as well?

[Damelon]

What about polygamy? (sp?) If the husband and all his wives love each other and want to be together, should they be able to be married as well?

My understanding is that anti-polygamy laws were originally aimed at the Mormons. Here's a link to the current state of the issue in the US:

www.religionwriters.com/public/tips/032 ... 904b.shtml

I think the main issue here is one of support more than anything else, but if all parties are fine with the arrangement....

[Brinn]

What about polygamy? (sp?) If the husband and all his wives love each other and want to be together, should they be able to be married as well?

IMHO, this argument forms the only basis for constructive debate against same sex marriage. That's not to say I disagree w/ same sex marriage, I don't. What I'm saying is that opponents of same-sex marriage will invoke the "slippery slope" argument to justify their opposition. e.g. If same sex couples can get married why can't polygamists, how about brothers and sisters, or, at it's most extreme, what about those who may want to marry an animal or family pet? Are these things inherently wrong or merely individual choices?

Just food for thought!