Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

[sophielynette]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

"It's against my religion" is not a valid excuse when it comes to other people's lives. If you don't believe in eating pork, or celebrating Halloween, because it's against your religion, that's fine, that's your right. But you can't make other people obey your beliefs.

I know many same sex couples. I know same sex couples who have raised children, and the children turned out just fine. I know many opposite sex couples who completely screwed up their children in an effort to raise them. And marriage doesn't automatically make or break a family, although divorce might...

I'll be honest, as someone whose parents were divorced before they were ten, I don't really put much stock into marriage. I've never held it sacred. But if adults want to be married, no matter their respective genders, that's their choice. Not my choice. Theirs.

[tutusue]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Well put, sophielynette.

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Perhaps so, but not on topic. Marriage is not the topic of this thread, no matter how much anyone tries to digress along that line.

Single parents are equally capable of good/bad child rearing, civil unions have nothing to do with child rearing, either.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Anyone who believes you can discuss the concept of the "civil union" alternative to marriage without discussing marriage itself reveals a dramatic level of ignorance.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Much of this is about economics, most of it is about gender-equality.

Two (or more) people can live together, but without the tax breaks and other benefits (legal, etc) conferred by marriage.

What I hear is people asking for those benefits that society denies them unless they get married. Same-gender couples cannot marry in our state, opposite-gender people can, but some may not choose to because of the obligations inherent in marriage (let's have the benefits but not the obligations?). Because of children issues and property issues any civil unions bill will need to have adequate obligations along with the benefits.

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Leo - Hmmm..., I thought it was the proponents who were insisting that a civil union is not a marriage. If it's not a marriage, why discuss marriage? Marriage has nothing to do with this issue, except that it provides a horrible legal precedent for which civil union proponents wish to strive.

Kaonohi - None of this is about gender equality. Both men and women are treated equally under the law now and will still be treated equally under the law if civil unions are legalized. Unless, of course, you wish to assign new genders to homosexuals and other who wish to avail themselves of civil unions.

It's not tax breaks, in particular, that civil union proponents seek. It's the legally binding commingling of assets, the health and retirement benefits, the 'immediate family' status, and the respect and approval of society that is sought. Of course, some seek marriage sanctioned by their churches as well, but let's choose not to further complicate the issue with peripheral matters.

How about this - just as it has been legally determined that 'intelligent design' equals 'creationism', isn't 'civil union' equal to 'marriage'? Why is anyone insisting that civil union IS NOT marriage? We don't need a new term when referring to an existing concept, unless we wish to keep our 'reality blinders' firmed fixed over our eyes. If the idea of same-sex marriage is abhorrent, how is same-sex civil union more palatable?

Are proponents really trying to create a new legal entity, 'civil union', that is not equal, legally, to marriage? Yes. Why? - because they want to do an end-around on the Defense of Marriage Act, just as the creationists attempted an end-around by teaching 'intelligent design' when teaching creationism [as a scientific theory] was barred. I can listen to same-sex marriage arguments, but civil unions? Please spare me, I'm more amenable to discarding old classes of legal entities than to creating new classes.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

By your way of thinking, s'ed: "Both of those drinking fountains give water, so why can't you colored people just be happy with drinking outta yours, and leave the other one for us white folks?"

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

No, my way thinkin' is that we don't need a second fountain and mebbe the first fountain warn't needed and ain't workin' anyhoo.

It amounts to just about a complete turn-around from your assessment, so maybe we're both walking toward the same pearly gates from opposite directions.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

... so maybe we're both walking toward the same pearly gates from opposite directions.

Perhaps we are, s'ed, perhaps we are. I'll be happy to hold the door for you. (Though I think that when I arrive at said gates, my name will be on a prominent "no-fly" list...)

[Kalalau]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Its funny how the "conservatives" who always say they want to keep government out of our lives are the ones who always want government to control people the most. No gay marriage, no civil unions, can't smoke cannabis even if you have cancer, can't look at spicy magazines even if you are an adult, can't, can't, can't, all control. They don't want business controlled--so a chemical company can dump toxics in the elementary school if thats convenient, or poison the air, obscenely wealthy Wall St. parasites can loot millions of peoples' life savings, etc. They are very selective on what they mean by getting the government out of "our" lives.

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Okay, I'll bite on this digression. I consider myself a conservative because I want to leave the world with prospects at least as good as I've enjoyed (doesn't look promising, tho). However, to do so, I believe radical reforms are necessary, so I suppose I'm a radical.

Here's a proposal - all formalized [domestic] partnerships (abolish the terms 'marriage' and 'civil union') require the legal filing of partnership documentation (nuptial agreements, if you wish) that specifies the nature and extent of obligations and privileges in that specific partnership. Even partnership exclusivity would be optional. No government or business organization would be allowed, much less required, to provide benefits to partnerships (or individual partners, or the children of partnerships) that aren't also extended to single citizens. Level the playing field a bit, in my estimation.

[Kalalau]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Meaning...a wife could not be covered by her husband's health insurance policy from his work? Or the kids? A surviving spouse could not get the deceased spouse's social security or medicare benefits or pension money? Each union of any kind would require going to an attorney, or attorneys, to formulate the contract of union? I am just trying to understand the proposal. From here it looks like the main effect would be to discourage marriage, that might or might not be a good idea depending on what you were trying to accomplish. But I don't think too many people would go for it, especially if you wanted to make it retroactive.

The law grants a lot of rights and privileges when a marriage is entered into, people seem pretty comfortable with that as it is, pre nups are a pretty recent development. It just seems a whole lot simpler to say, "Our system already promises equal rights under the law, lets just go with that, lets just do what the Constitution says." Conservatives like literal interpretation of the Constitution. Thats pretty literal. Or just amend it to take out equal protection, put in all the qualifiers about which churches get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Its funny how the "conservatives" who always say they want to keep government out of our lives are the ones who always want government to control people the most. No gay marriage, no civil unions, can't smoke cannabis even if you have cancer, can't look at spicy magazines even if you are an adult, can't, can't, can't, all control. They don't want business controlled--so a chemical company can dump toxics in the elementary school if thats convenient, or poison the air, obscenely wealthy Wall St. parasites can loot millions of peoples' life savings, etc. They are very selective on what they mean by getting the government out of "our" lives.

Funny, by definition conservatives tend to avoid change and liberals tend to promote change. The one thing they have in common is using power to take advantage of us.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Funny, by definition conservatives tend to avoid change and liberals tend to promote change. The one thing they have in common is using power to take advantage of us.

Well, the other thing they have in common is that they are all humans, all too easy to stereotype and demonize, and all different.

I wanna be unique ... just like everybody else!!!

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Meaning...a wife could not be covered by her husband's health insurance policy from his work? Or the kids? A surviving spouse could not get the deceased spouse's social security or medicare benefits or pension money? Each union of any kind would require going to an attorney, or attorneys, to formulate the contract of union? I am just trying to understand the proposal. From here it looks like the main effect would be to discourage marriage, that might or might not be a good idea depending on what you were trying to accomplish. But I don't think too many people would go for it, especially if you wanted to make it retroactive.

The law grants a lot of rights and privileges when a marriage is entered into, people seem pretty comfortable with that as it is, pre nups are a pretty recent development. It just seems a whole lot simpler to say, "Our system already promises equal rights under the law, lets just go with that, lets just do what the Constitution says." Conservatives like literal interpretation of the Constitution. Thats pretty literal. Or just amend it to take out equal protection, put in all the qualifiers about which churches get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't.

Not at all, Kalalau. A wife or family could be covered, but any increase in the insurance premium could not be supplemented by employer funds unless every employee could so designate 'also covered' person(s). Same for social security, medicare, pensions, etc. If the government wants to get into the healthcare business, then it should cover all citizens - not just the elderly, government employees and other groups now honored with those benefits - and married persons shouldn't get additional benefits not offered to singles. Same applies to the pension business. Any other policy amounts to unequal protection under the law and pits demographic groups against one another to the detriment of society (by a loss of equal protection).

An attorney wouldn't be necessary, any more than they are now for marriages, wills, power of attorneys, real estate transactions, etc., though it may be advisable to retain one (as is also true now). The goal of this proposal is increased 'equality under the law' for all citizens, as well as greater understanding of the legal consequences for the parties involved.

If people seem pretty comfortable with what we have now, we don't need civil unions (I presume that is your position by this statement). We could say our system already promises equal rights under the law, but does it really deliver? As for marriage and the constitution, I believe it is not addressed in that document.