Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civil Unions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civil Unions

    I'm intrigued about this bill. It's aimed at helping out our homosexual community by giving these couples the same privileges as traditional marriages between men and women.

    But how different is it? Let's say a man and a woman were to utilize a Civil Union instead of a marriage. Are they considered Husband and Wife? What do partners who who use this form of partnership call themselves?

    Is there a restriction in this bill allowing only human beings to form civil unions?

    I'm just curious to find out to what limits Civil Unions can go and if more hetrosexual couples will consider this over marriage. Is there a benefit?

    Because it wouldn't be sanctioned by a Christian church, could a civil union partner commit adultry but not be accused of it? I can't imagine a cheating partner being accused of a very Christian sin when you take that Christian perspective out of the loop.

    So what would a cheating civil union partner be called if committing adultry? And what do you call two people partnered thru Civil Unions when they separate? Can you call them Divorced? Widowed? Or just single again?

    Interesting to see how this all plays out if it get's passed. I'm thinking it will.
    Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

  • #2
    Re: Civil Unions

    Originally posted by craigwatanabe View Post
    I'm intrigued about this bill. It's aimed at helping out our homosexual community by giving these couples the same privileges as traditional marriages between men and women.

    But how different is it? Let's say a man and a woman were to utilize a Civil Union instead of a marriage. Are they considered Husband and Wife? What do partners who who use this form of partnership call themselves?

    Is there a restriction in this bill allowing only human beings to form civil unions?

    I'm just curious to find out to what limits Civil Unions can go and if more hetrosexual couples will consider this over marriage. Is there a benefit?
    Not relevant!

    From HB 444:
    "Eligibility to enter into a civil union. A person shall be eligible to enter into a civil union only if the person is:
    (1) Not a partner in another civil union or a marriage;
    (2) Of the same sex as the other partner in the civil union;
    (3) At least eighteen years of age; and
    (4) Not related to the other partner as provided in section -3.
    § -3 Civil unions void; when. A civil union shall be void if between the following persons:
    (1) A woman and her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister; or
    (2) A man and his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or mother's brother."

    Because it wouldn't be sanctioned by a Christian church, could a civil union partner commit adultry but not be accused of it? I can't imagine a cheating partner being accused of a very Christian sin when you take that Christian perspective out of the loop.

    So what would a cheating civil union partner be called if committing adultry? And what do you call two people partnered thru Civil Unions when they separate? Can you call them Divorced? Widowed? Or just single again?

    Interesting to see how this all plays out if it get's passed. I'm thinking it will.
    Relax, Craig, you're too uptight. Too much "fires of hell" propaganda going around?

    Instead of listening to people who know nothing, READ THE BILL! I provided a link above for you. Neither churches nor heterosexuals have anything to fear regarding the points you brought up.

    It looks like a good thing!
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Civil Unions

      Originally posted by craigwatanabe View Post
      I'm intrigued about this bill. It's aimed at helping out our homosexual community by giving these couples the same privileges as traditional marriages between men and women.

      But how different is it? Let's say a man and a woman were to utilize a Civil Union instead of a marriage. Are they considered Husband and Wife? What do partners who who use this form of partnership call themselves?
      If I was in a straight civil union I'd probably call my partner the same as my gay friends and family call their partners. That is..."partner"!
      Is there a restriction in this bill allowing only human beings to form civil unions?
      Egads...never thought about that! If not, I'd guess it'd be presumed!
      I'm just curious to find out to what limits Civil Unions can go and if more hetrosexual couples will consider this over marriage. Is there a benefit?
      While I haven't given this much thought, my guess is it would provide legal benefits when it comes to health care, finances, etc. I haven't read the bill so I'm kinda shooting from the hip. I see civil unions as a separation of church and state.
      Because it wouldn't be sanctioned by a Christian church, could a civil union partner commit adultry but not be accused of it? I can't imagine a cheating partner being accused of a very Christian sin when you take that Christian perspective out of the loop.
      A cheater is a cheater, be they athiests, Christians, Buddhists, etc. Is "adultry" just the Christian name for cheating?
      So what would a cheating civil union partner be called if committing adultry?
      A cheating partner is just a..."cheater"! And/or a few other R rated words!
      And what do you call two people partnered thru Civil Unions when they separate? Can you call them Divorced? Widowed? Or just single again?
      My gay friends in that situation refer to themselves as "single".
      Interesting to see how this all plays out if it get's passed. I'm thinking it will.
      I'm hoping it will.

      ETA...Thanks for the link, Kaonohi. Appreciate it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Civil Unions

        the senate passed an ammended version of the bill to include opposite-sex couples. This happened in May, 2009. I was under the impression that what the House passed on last day of session was this same ammended senate bill.
        This was the reason it didn't need to go back to committee again - the senate had already passed it.
        "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
        – Sydney J. Harris

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Civil Unions

          hi ,i wish to share my oht on this subject,

          im not being unkind only from my thought's,i was taught not to believe in what was inquired on this post only i may not support it only in a place where my eldest sis live's,no one support's it and she my eldest sis think's that's nice.

          i imoho think that i wont say much is i wouldnt wish to make anyone feel this way=O(

          Well thank's for your time

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Civil Unions

            Originally posted by Kaonohi View Post
            Not relevant!

            From HB 444:
            "Eligibility to enter into a civil union. A person shall be eligible to enter into a civil union only if the person is:
            (1) Not a partner in another civil union or a marriage;
            (2) Of the same sex as the other partner in the civil union;
            (3) At least eighteen years of age; and
            (4) Not related to the other partner as provided in section -3.
            § -3 Civil unions void; when. A civil union shall be void if between the following persons:
            (1) A woman and her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister; or
            (2) A man and his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or mother's brother."



            Relax, Craig, you're too uptight. Too much "fires of hell" propaganda going around?

            Instead of listening to people who know nothing, READ THE BILL! I provided a link above for you. Neither churches nor heterosexuals have anything to fear regarding the points you brought up.

            It looks like a good thing!
            I'm totally relaxed and not uptight. This was just to open thoughtful dialog not some Christian Crusade.

            I guess civil unions are strictly for same sex partners as you indicated. Thanks for finding this info. And there won't be any fires from hell, so relax Kaonohi. I'm a Christian and that's my belief. I'm just curious to know what others think. I'm trying to be open minded here, no propaganda.
            Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Civil Unions

              Originally posted by craigwatanabe View Post
              I guess civil unions are strictly for same sex partners as you indicated.
              It appears that each state's statute varies. Here in WA, civil unions are available to same-sex couples and/or elderly couples of opposite gender. The elderly aspect (sorry, I don't recall the age and I'm away from home at the moment) was included for those of a certain age who did not wish to marry at that point in their lives, but did have a companion with whom they could share certain end-of-life legal rights and medical decisions.

              My sweetie and I, still cohabitating unmarried after 15 years together, can not have "civil union" status in our home state. Why not? Because if we want all of the same rights, we can easily marry. As it is, our individual wills do cover same of those aspects already (regarding disposition of property, living will desires, etc.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Civil Unions

                Originally posted by Kaonohi View Post
                [...]
                Relax, Craig, you're too uptight. Too much "fires of hell" propaganda going around?[...]
                Hmmm...I didn't detect any tension on Craig's part regarding this subject. I kinda thought he put forth some interesting questions in a non-judgemental way. Just my 2 pesos!
                Originally posted by Leo Lakio View Post
                [...]As it is, our individual wills do cover same of those aspects already (regarding disposition of property, living will desires, etc.)
                My hanai bros, a gay couple who live in CA, have done the same thing. They've been together for 27 years and have taken legal steps to cover everything...esp. necessary since one of them has a grown son and grandchildren. They don't feel the need to legally unite in a civil union or a marriage, if allowed. Come to think of it...if civil unions aren't allowed here, what's to stop other gay couples from taking their own, legal steps to protect their rights? Is it the ceremonial act of a civil union that becomes important?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Civil Unions

                  Originally posted by tutusue View Post
                  Is it the ceremonial act of a civil union that becomes important?
                  For many, I think that may be true. They want to have the right to celebrate their love and commitment together with family and friends, just like any hetero couple.
                  ~ This is the strangest life I've ever known ~

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Civil Unions

                    The main reason to enter into a "civil union" has to do with legalities, not romance. The members of a couple have no legal rights in regard to their partner when it comes to things like hospital care, medical decisions and other legal matters that would be automatic for a "married" couple. Legalities has nothing to with religion either. It's just what it is: legal matters.
                    "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
                    – Sydney J. Harris

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Civil Unions

                      Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                      The main reason to enter into a "civil union" has to do with legalities, not romance. The members of a couple have no legal rights in regard to their partner when it comes to things like hospital care, medical decisions and other legal matters that would be automatic for a "married" couple. Legalities has nothing to with religion either. It's just what it is: legal matters.
                      But, Anapuni, my gay bros have taken care of these legal matters via an attorney. I assume other gay couples can do the same thing. Even straight, married couples need to have all their legal ducks in a row with estate planning, health care directives and wills. That's why I asked if the ceremonial act of a civil union is what's important. I'm definitely not against civil unions but am trying to understand exactly what it is about them that will accomplish something that can't be accomplished any other way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Civil Unions

                        Originally posted by tutusue View Post
                        But, Anapuni, my gay bros have taken care of these legal matters via an attorney. I assume other gay couples can do the same thing. Even straight, married couples need to have all their legal ducks in a row with estate planning, health care directives and wills. That's why I asked if the ceremonial act of a civil union is what's important. I'm definitely not against civil unions but am trying to understand exactly what it is about them that will accomplish something that can't be accomplished any other way.
                        You're assuming that all gay couples have the money and resources to go to an attorney and have an estate plan made. Also, that even if a plan is made, that the plan will be honored. A listserv to which I belong had a discussion about this case (note: I don't know anything personally about this case other than what was posted on the list. I haven't verified any of the info other than what was posted.) http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageSe...f_Sonoma_et_al The case is about a same-gender couple, together for 25 years, who had estate planning documents in place. The beginning of the article makes sense to me ~ one had a fall, an ambulance was called against that person's wishes and he was mad and said that his partner abused him. The County of Sonoma investigated the allegation. That was fine. There was a court hearing because the County tried to get control over the person and property of the injured person. But the County did *not* prevail in proving abuse and did not win in court to override the couple's estate plan. But the county went ahead without authorization, ignored the legal documents, and involuntarily placed both men in care homes and sold all their belonging and kept them separated until one of them died. The surviving man finally won his release with the help of a court appointed lawyer and now there's a lawsuit against the County.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Civil Unions

                          Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                          The main reason to enter into a "civil union" has to do with legalities, not romance. The members of a couple have no legal rights in regard to their partner when it comes to things like hospital care, medical decisions and other legal matters that would be automatic for a "married" couple. Legalities has nothing to with religion either. It's just what it is: legal matters.
                          Originally posted by tutusue View Post
                          But, Anapuni, my gay bros have taken care of these legal matters via an attorney. I assume other gay couples can do the same thing. Even straight, married couples need to have all their legal ducks in a row with estate planning, health care directives and wills. That's why I asked if the ceremonial act of a civil union is what's important. I'm definitely not against civil unions but am trying to understand exactly what it is about them that will accomplish something that can't be accomplished any other way.
                          Originally posted by Adri View Post
                          You're assuming that all gay couples have the money and resources to go to an attorney and have an estate plan made. Also, that even if a plan is made, that the plan will be honored.
                          Good point. There's also the issue of what happens when a gay/lesbian couple decides to dissolve their union. How will their home, assets, and debts be divided? Just as importantly, where will this matter be adjudicated? Under the circumstances that Sue's gay brothers live under, the division of property would probably take place in a civil court hearing, rather than in the family court since they are not a legally recognized couple (married or in a civil union). If, OTOH, that same couple had entered into a civil union, then the legal proceedings that they would have to go through (should they decide to split-up) would more closely adhere to the same process that hetero married couples go through when they seek a divorce.
                          This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Civil Unions

                            Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                            Good point. There's also the issue of what happens when a gay/lesbian couple decides to dissolve their union. How will their home, assets, and debts be divided? Just as importantly, where will this matter be adjudicated? Under the circumstances that Sue's gay brothers live under, the division of property would probably take place in a civil court hearing, rather than in the family court since they are not a legally recognized couple (married or in a civil union). If, OTOH, that same couple had entered into a civil union, then the legal proceedings that they would have to go through (should they decide to split-up) would more closely adhere to the same process that hetero married couples go through when they seek a divorce.
                            That is an interesting issue. There are cases where same gender couples traveled to other jurisdictions to get married then returned home to states that did not recognize same gender marriages and then split up. and the states that do not recognize same gender marriages do not provide for divorces for those couples. I disremember which state (Mass?) allows people to travel there and get married with little or no waiting but one of the couple must live there for 6 months in order to get divorced there. So there are a few cases where gay married people find themselves having difficulty getting divorced.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Civil Unions

                              Adri and FM, you both bring up good points...which is why I'm bringing all of this up. I'm just trying to get a better handle on it.

                              Adri, I wasn't clear. What I should've said, instead of "I assume other gay couples can do the same thing", is...I assume other gay couples have the same options. I had my estate planning done a little over 3 years ago and it wasn't very expensive...under $1000. That said, in this economy that can be a lot of money for a lot of people.

                              I'm aware of the case you cited, Adri, and forwarded it to my bros a couple of months ago. While it was a horrendous injustice, they didn't feel that they'd fall into the same trap due to some facts one had to dig deep for.

                              It seems to me, the way my bros chose to handle their situation, should they split up, #1, I'd be devastated and #2, all that would need to be done is to change their estate planning/will/health care directive. There's no need for a dissolution of "union". This is beginning to sound so much simpler! Still, the gay community should be entitled to the same rights as the straight community.

                              As I mentioned, I'm just putting my thoughts out there in the hopes of hearing other people's thoughts. My 2 guys will be here in December. At that time I'm going to ask them for their detailed opinions on this subject. And, after a few glasses of wine, you can bet I'll get way more detailed opinions than I bargained for! Can't wait!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X