my position on civil unions

[Bonhoffer]

As the courts said in the landmark decision about gay marriage in Massachusetts; "history has shown that 'separate but equal' is rarely ever equal."

And having two completely different names, "marriage" and "civil union", is a separate but equal approach.

I know that many gay activists like to compare the 'seperate but equal' approach to marriage to the 'seperate but equal' treatment of black and white people in segregated America. Gay activists also compare the prohibition of interracial marriage in the 19th century to the ban on same-sex marriage. Therefore it is argued that the people in favour if civil unions but not marriage are not much better than the racial segregationists.

However these arguements are flawed in the fact that seperate but equal policy is more accepted when it relates to gender than when it relates to race.
For example many public places have seperate but equal policies for tiolets in regards to gender. We have the mens tiolets and the womens tiolets. Men are not allowed in the womens tiolets and visa versa.
And yet if we applied this this 'seperate but equal' policy to race then it would be completely unacceptable to most people. Because here we would have one tiolet for blacks and one for whites.

For a proponent of gay marriage to compare this 'gay unions but not marriage' to racial segregation then to be consistant they would have to demand unisex tiolets and the end of male/female tiolets.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Works for me.

I'd just like the term to be called "civil marriage" instead of "civil union".

As the courts said in the landmark decision about gay marriage in Massachusetts; "history has shown that 'separate but equal' is rarely ever equal."

And having two completely different names, "marriage" and "civil union", is a separate but equal approach.

So, I think if it were called a "civil marriage", we could all understand the similarity.

I have always fought for same-sex marriage, but always in the civil arena. I'm not expecting a church to approve the gay life, much less approve gay marriage. However, the civil sector must approve it eventually. The future will prove that it is unconstitutional not to legalize same-sex marriage.

However despite our difference of opinion, I do respect Sam Gamgee here.

Well done for not comparing your opponents to Adolf Hitler.
Screaming 'intolerance' and 'bigot' at people with a different point of veiw is unfair, childish and interlectually dishonest. It is a way often used to silence opponents, rather than to be brave and show the flaws of their arguement.
In fact shouting 'intolerance' and 'bigot' at someone is in effect cheating.

 

[Bonhoffer]

My concern about gay unions being called 'marriage' is that it will force the rest of society to recognise that union as a marriage. I dont have a problem with gay people or anyone else choosing to call it 'marriage' between themselves. Its just when the state or a business or general citizens have to call it 'marriage' by law that it becomes a problem. If I were an employer would I be sued if a didnt refer to a gay workers partner as his 'husband'? Because if I refered to his partner as his 'husband' then I would be officially recognising something that I do not believe in. I would be comprimising my own faith. It would be like me having to address a Mormon as a 'Christian' etc.. etc...

It could also get extremely confusing for children in particular.

 

[Billnew]

Petrarch,

I think that "marriage" is a church issue while "civil unions" is a state issue. The state should keep it's nose out of the church's business and vice versa. I also support civil unions for homosexual couples, but religions do not have to marry them.

Diane

This is my position on the issue.
If a State wants Civil unions it needs to make a law, or change existing laws to allow these.
Not just change the law by demand.

Just like everything in law, it's not just a matter of allowing a couple to unite,
but how to disolve the union, or how children in the union will be handled.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, unions can be allowed easily. But needs to reviewed and made into law.

 

[Bunnaroo]

The state should keep it's nose out of the church's business and vice versa.

Nay, not so. The Constitution protects us from the State declaring any religion as the "official" religion of the United States. On the other hand, the Church is supposed to be involved with the affairs of the State.

The Church as a legal entity is not to be involved in politics, as in the staff is not to campaign from the pulpit. A pastor can bring up issues that are currently in the political arena and what the Bible has to say about them during the Sunday sermon. (My church is incorporated as a non-profit organization. That means the State acknowledges its right to own property, sue and be sued, hire staff, and (not) pay taxes.) The Church body, the people that make up the church, can get involved more directly. Christians need to be involved in politics. We need more true Christians to run for office. If we leave the running of the state to non-Christians, we are demanding to be, at best, ignored or, at worst, forced to act against our beliefs. I have said this before, and will continue to scream it from the rooftops: GET OFF YOUR BLESSED ASSURANCE AND PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. At the very least, vote.

I heard yesterday that Texans have the opportunity this November 8th to vote on Resolution 2, which is whether the state constitution should be amended to protect marriage. I suspect that, if the word gets out, it will be supported, just like the other 11 states that upheld traditional marriage in 2004.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

I heard yesterday that Texans have the opportunity this November 8th to vote on Resolution 2, which is whether the state constitution should be amended to protect marriage. I suspect that, if the word gets out, it will be supported, just like the other 11 states that upheld traditional marriage in 2004.

Being Texas, I'm sure you're right. The same thing was attempted in New Hampshire and everyone agreed, right up to the Governor, that there is no need to amend a constitution that already protects marriage.

But, I believe that, just as the struggle for minority and women's rights was thwarted by the constitution in the past, so will the struggle for gay rights.

I think that as time progresses, more and more people will understand that it doesn't matter who's arms I wrap myself up in, who's eyes I see myself in.
People will understand that it doesn't matter who I dream of or who I love. It only matters that I was loved and that I loved someone completely.

And when that happens, same-sex marriage will be allowed in more states than Massachusetts. It's all a matter of time.

Massachusetts was the site of so many revolutionary events (the Boston Tea Party, the start of the Revolution). It's only fitting that gay marriage rights started there too

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm almost backwards to the flow here. I could care less if gays get something that is an official marriage certificate, but I object to the "eqality" of it to heterosexual marriage, as the situations simply are worlds apart from the standpoint of insurance, benefits and the like. There's no sense in single people living together to get the same benefits as people raising families. It's just a government handout to people for having a sexual preference against the norm, and is bad policy through and through.

The usual complaint I get is, "well, then heterosexual people who don't have kids should not get benefits either." Wrong again, in my view. Heterosexual people who have not yet had children often are waiting precisely so that they can afford them, this the reason for all the benefits in the first place! Absolute equality between gays and straights in the arena of marriage benefits is simply not feasible. I am for reasonable concessions to gays who end up having kids in their household to raise for whatever reason, but in general, I am just against handing people benefits because they are gay and decide they want to live together permanently. By that logic, any long term roomate should be allowed these same benefits. After all, why should someone be forced to have sex with their partner just to get benefits?

It's all about attacking the Christian right anyhow. There are so many things in the US that really NEED attention, but they do not help politicians in their quest to get elected, so they are ignored. I'm not even going to throw the bone, "there are extremes on both sides," out on this one. The idea of gay people needing to get a marriage that is the absolute equal of the typical heterosexual one is simply a political dog and pony show by democrats that happens to have backfired on them everywhere except a handful of states.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm almost backwards to the flow here. I could care less if gays get something that is an official marriage certificate, but I object to the "eqality" of it to heterosexual marriage, as the situations simply are worlds apart from the standpoint of insurance, benefits and the like. There's no sense in single people living together to get the same benefits as people raising families. It's just a government handout to people for having a sexual preference against the norm, and is bad policy through and through.

The usual complaint I get is, "well, then heterosexual people who don't have kids should not get benefits either." Wrong again, in my view. Heterosexual people who have not yet had children often are waiting precisely so that they can afford them, this the reason for all the benefits in the first place! Absolute equality between gays and straights in the arena of marriage benefits is simply not feasible. I am for reasonable concessions to gays who end up having kids in their household to raise for whatever reason, but in general, I am just against handing people benefits because they are gay and decide they want to live together permanently. By that logic, any long term roomate should be allowed these same benefits. After all, why should someone be forced to have sex with their partner just to get benefits?

It's all about attacking the Christian right anyhow. There are so many things in the US that really NEED attention, but they do not help politicians in their quest to get elected, so they are ignored. I'm not even going to throw the bone, "there are extremes on both sides," out on this one. The idea of gay people needing to get a marriage that is the absolute equal of the typical heterosexual one is simply a political dog and pony show by democrats that happens to have backfired on them everywhere except a handful of states.

I think my favorite is:
Paraphrased ~ Government recognized marriage affirms the unique public merits of a relationship that brings the sexes together.
http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/05_May/052102_mn_questions.shtml
Same gender relationships do not do that.

I also agree on the issues given regarding the model that produces and raises children. The extremist demand that only one or "a reason" must be the sole reason rather than one of many is a disingenuous position IMO. Nowhere do I see where it says that there must be one and only one reason to deny or grant incentives.
If one and only one reason IS the demand, then by all means the qualifications for government recognized marriage is that the citizens choose to grant incentives to some models and not to others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

[.Mikha'el.]

By that logic, any long term roomate should be allowed these same benefits. After all, why should someone be forced to have sex with their partner just to get benefits?

My definition of the civil union would include extending benefits to those people as well, so it is not a condoning of homosexuality. Lets face it. If two roommates are going to more or less permanently cohabitate, they would face some of the same issues as homosexual couples, and therefore should be considered a "civil union" if they choose to. But, on the other hand, if it is considered reasonable to deny them rights, then homosexuals should also be denied these rights.

 

[Bunnaroo]

But, on the other hand, if it is considered reasonable to deny them rights, then homosexuals should also be denied these rights.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you support a line being drawn somewhere.

If there is a point where benefits shouldn't be extended, what's wrong with the status quo?

Oh, there's that word again: reasonable. Good luck on finding a consensus on what is reasonable. Now if there is a majority of people that agree on that line...

On a different note, I realized yesterday why this is such an issue. The model of Man and Wife is symbolic of God's relationship to his Church. Sexual purity is demonstrative of our understanding of faithfulness to Him and His principles. Homosexuality is the most obvious form of sexual impurity, and breaks our Heavenly Father's heart. Other forms of sexual impurity; such as cohabitation, fornication, adultery, and pornography; are similar to idolatry. When we embrace sexual impurity we're "screwing around" on the bridegroom with other "gods". Can you imagine how you would feel to find out your significant other sleeping around? Betrayal? Fury? Desire to smash a jaw (or other portion of anatomy)?
God feels the same way about us. He wants to destroy the one who has stolen us from him, and will wait for us to return. We are forgiven, even when we have truly screwed up. However, we have to return on our own. He will not force us.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

"I suspect that, if the word gets out, it will be supported, just like the other 11 states that upheld traditional marriage in 2004."

Traditional marriage is either having a marriage arranged for and negotiated by your parents, often with a gift to the bride's family (essentially purchasing her) or polygamy. It is in our own Christian roots and in non christian marriage.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"I suspect that, if the word gets out, it will be supported, just like the other 11 states that upheld traditional marriage in 2004."


Traditional marriage is either having a marriage arranged for and negotiated by your parents, often with a gift to the bride's family (essentially purchasing her) or polygamy. It is in our own Christian roots and in non christian marriage.

Hmm... the assertion that polygamy and arranged marriage is the traditional norm (excluding the "other than" Judeo/Christian cultures) rather than merely a referenced occurrence reflected in scripture.

Would you care to show this as being true or am I correct in noting an unqualified reference which may be mistakenly interpreted as applied to the "Christian roots"?

Even giving the inclusion of the possible exception to the norm of polygamy, arranged marriage, and even marrying one's cousin which all are not supported (for the most part) by government recognition in the U.S., this in common reasoning only shows more of a secular filter for endorsement than a religious one.

 

[amx]

Traditional marriage is either having a marriage arranged for and negotiated by your parents, often with a gift to the bride's family (essentially purchasing her) or polygamy. It is in our own Christian roots and in non christian marriage.

In Timothy 3:2 states that an elder in the church must be above reproach, the husband of but ONE WIFE, temperate, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

This is our Christian tradition. Good men that God would have as leaders in His church mirror the relationship of Christ to his bride.

I remember a study bantered about this fall on the radio discussing the long term effects of the institutionalization of homosexuality on a culture. If memory serves, they watched the Netherlands for the twenty or so years after they legalized civil unions. The changes in the culture were dramatic. There were steep declines in hetrosexual marriage and, I remember, a thiry percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births. Since I'm headed out the door to church, regard this more on the opinion side of the spectrum. Does anyone know how to find this information?

 

[invisible trousers]

I remember a study bantered about this fall on the radio discussing the long term effects of the institutionalization of homosexuality on a culture. If memory serves, they watched the Netherlands for the twenty or so years after they legalized civil unions. The changes in the culture were dramatic. There were steep declines in hetrosexual marriage and, I remember, a thiry percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births. Since I'm headed out the door to church, regard this more on the opinion side of the spectrum. Does anyone know how to find this information?

you've been lied to. if you don't believe me that's fine but try to find actual sources which back up your claims

 

[.Mikha'el.]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you support a line being drawn somewhere.

If there is a point where benefits shouldn't be extended, what's wrong with the status quo?

I think there is nothing wrong with the status quo, but I have absolutely no problem with benefits being extended to homosexual couples provided that the same benefits could also be given to any two cohabitating individuals who could not be considered married.

 

[beechy]

I'm almost backwards to the flow here. I could care less if gays get something that is an official marriage certificate, but I object to the "eqality" of it to heterosexual marriage, as the situations simply are worlds apart from the standpoint of insurance, benefits and the like. There's no sense in single people living together to get the same benefits as people raising families. It's just a government handout to people for having a sexual preference against the norm, and is bad policy through and through.

The usual complaint I get is, "well, then heterosexual people who don't have kids should not get benefits either." Wrong again, in my view. Heterosexual people who have not yet had children often are waiting precisely so that they can afford them, this the reason for all the benefits in the first place! Absolute equality between gays and straights in the arena of marriage benefits is simply not feasible. I am for reasonable concessions to gays who end up having kids in their household to raise for whatever reason, but in general, I am just against handing people benefits because they are gay and decide they want to live together permanently. By that logic, any long term roomate should be allowed these same benefits. After all, why should someone be forced to have sex with their partner just to get benefits?

It's all about attacking the Christian right anyhow. There are so many things in the US that really NEED attention, but they do not help politicians in their quest to get elected, so they are ignored. I'm not even going to throw the bone, "there are extremes on both sides," out on this one. The idea of gay people needing to get a marriage that is the absolute equal of the typical heterosexual one is simply a political dog and pony show by democrats that happens to have backfired on them everywhere except a handful of states.

When you say you are against "handing people benefits because they are gay and decide they want to live together permanently," because "by that logic, any long term roomate should be allowed these same benefits," I wonder if you have ever been in love. Your position either ignores or misunderstands what gay people can feel for one another. Marriage is about commitment and it carries both benefits and responsibilites.

Civil marriage, as has been explained by the Massachusetts Supreme Court (see the cite below), is a deeply personal commitment between two people by and for each other to the exclusion of all others. If this is what the state is recognizing with this thing called marriage, what is the difference between two gay people who fall in love and "decide they want to live together permanently," and two straight people who fall in love and "decide they want to live together permanently"? Why do you assume that a gay couple would have a different motivation for marrying than a straight couple would?

I've had roommates. I've also have dear friends whom I love deeply. But my partner is different than any of my friends (although she is also, of course, my best friend) or a roommate. I'm in love with her. I want to hold her in my arms. I want to build a life with her. I want to buy a house with her and make it into a home. I want to raise children with her -- which, incidentally, brings me to the next point.

You seem to base much of your argument on a purported distinction between the respective desire of gay vs. straight couples when it comes to having children. There may be fewer gay and lesbian couples with children than there are straight couples, but in America today 8 to 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian households. Also, there are many couples both gay and straight that remain unapologetically childless throughout their lives (like Oprah and Stedman) . . . does that mean they aren't a family? Is a family's worth measured by its numbers? Is a marriage worth less if it is childless?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court articulated some of this in its 2003 court decision regarding gay marriage. In a February 3, 2004 statement of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices to the Massachusetts Senate, they quoted from that opinion as follows:

The court also noted that "intangible benefits flow from marriage," id. at 322, intangibles that are important components of marriage as a "civil right." Id. at 325. The court stated that "[m]arriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry . . . [and] is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." Id. at 322. "Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition." Id. Therefore, without the right to choose to marry, same-sex couples are not only denied full protection of the laws, but are "excluded from the full range of human experience." Id. at 326.

The court stated that the denial of civil marital status "works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Id. at 341. These omnipresent hardships include, but are by no means limited to, the absence of predictable rules of child support and property division, and even uncertainty concerning whether one will be allowed to visit one's sick child or one's partner in a hospital. See, e.g., id. at 315 n.6, 335. See also id. at 348 (Greaney, J., concurring) ("The continued maintenance of this caste-like system is irreconcilable with, indeed, totally repugnant to, the State's strong interest in the welfare of all children and its primary focus . . . on 'the best interests of the child'"). All of these stem from the status of same-sex couples and their children as "outliers to the marriage laws." Id. at 335.

Dog and pony show? Maybe to you, but these are people's lives we're talking about ...

 

[Bunnaroo]

you've been lied to. if you don't believe me that's fine but try to find actual sources which back up your claims

Mr. Trousers, it is you that is incorrect in this case. I'll do the work that she requested.

Does anyone know how to find this information?

Here are two web sites which have the data amx requested:

One from The Heritage Foundation

One from the Family Research Council

There are several other websites. All you have to do is Google search "Netherlands Homosexual". There are several other searches you could do, but this quickly worded one turned up several similar to the one you were talking about, amx.
The facts are there, complete with the sources of said facts. In order to completely refute all of these facts someone would have to discredit more than 50 studies.
Thanks for bringing that point up, amx. I learned more about this issue just from fulfilling your request.

 

[ebia]

One from the Family Research Council

A quick scan through this is quite illuminating - talk about bias. I should bookmark it for lessons on "How to lie with statistics".

For instance, comparing the duration of (all) homosexual relationships with hetrosexual marriages is absurd.

 

[amx]

Considering the likelyhood that any homosexual relationship will be long term and compared to married heterosexual relationships and considering the rates of fidelity Eiba is correct. It is not fair to compare homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equal because they are not. They do not lead to equal health of our society nor do they garner equal favor from God. Nor do they lead to equal health for the individuals involved. According to the book Where Does a Mother Go to Resign the likelyhood of suicide among homosexuals is higher than heterosexuals. This book opened my eyes about some of the hidden issues with homosexuality. This lady tells her story about her son abandoning his family to adopt this lifestyle. It was very difficult to read because I could sense her heart ache on every page. When her son kicked over the traces it would have been easier to her if he had died. She had lost two sons before in tragic accidents. When a son dies you at least have community support. I think there is a need for a group in church to support mothers going through this profound grief and loss. It was ten years before the son and his mother reconciled. He recommitted his life to Christ and found the way out of this life through a program called Exit. If anyone reading this today has found the homosexual lifestyle to have fallen short of it's initial promises and you are longing for a close lasting relationship Christ can fill your every longing. If you want info on the Exit program I'd probably try Focus on the Family at 1800AFAMILY. They can find anything!

 

[invisible trousers]

Mr. Trousers, it is you that is incorrect in this case. I'll do the work that she requested.

Here are two web sites which have the data amx requested:

One from The Heritage Foundation

One from the Family Research Council

There are several other websites. All you have to do is Google search "Netherlands Homosexual". There are several other searches you could do, but this quickly worded one turned up several similar to the one you were talking about, amx.
The facts are there, complete with the sources of said facts. In order to completely refute all of these facts someone would have to discredit more than 50 studies.
Thanks for bringing that point up, amx. I learned more about this issue just from fulfilling your request.

has it ever crossed your mind that groups such as the heritage foundation and the family research council would be dishonest and purposely misinterpret data to further their own agenda?

According to the book Where Does a Mother Go to Resign the likelyhood of suicide among homosexuals is higher than heterosexuals.

perhaps it's because of people like you who think homosexuals and bisexuals should be second-class citizens.