Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Okay, you're new, so I'll bite. Is marriage a human right? I say no, it's a cultural and/or legal rite. Please don't confuse legal and cultural rites with human rights because they are wholly unrelated. Thank you, very much.

Addendum - "...two couples can share..." I see you're into foursomes, eh?

In Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court stated that "...The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " and called marriage a "fundamental freedom". Of course, Loving v. Virgina was a case about interracial marriage and not same sex marriages.

[sansei]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

hi,imoho,i disagree is i remember i posted my thought's only marriage is like when a once citycouncil man once fighted for t marriage's and not civil union's.,

also in our lord's time,their wasnt any civil union's and once when i read my bible,their was no civil union's marriage in those time's.

Well thank's for your time

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

sansei: Hammurabi's Code is believed to contain one of the earliest marriage laws. It was made between 1790-1750 BC (that's before the birth of Christ and before the Christian Era) and marriage was a contact; that is, marriage was a civil union. It was not a religious ceremony.

edited to add: sansei: I respect your right to believe that same sex relationships/unions/marriages are wrong even if I disagree with you. However, you should be factually correct. People existed before the birth of Christ. People had families and got married before Christianity was created. Christianity is a relatively young religion in comparison to other religions. Marriages began as social contracts, as arrangements to consolidate power and resources. Marriages were often money transactions, not necessarily based upon love. and same sex marriages/unions, while never as popular as heterosexual marriages/unions, existed in ancient greece, ancient china, and ancient rome.

[Nobunaga]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Okay, you're new, so I'll bite. Is marriage a human right? I say no, it's a cultural and/or legal rite. Please don't confuse legal and cultural rites with human rights because they are wholly unrelated. Thank you, very much.

Addendum - "...two couples can share..." I see you're into foursomes, eh?

I cannot agree with your belief that marriage is not a human right. As long as you are not presently married, no one can legally stop you from getting legally married.

Once before, less than 50 years ago, inter-racial marriages was illegal in some states in this country. This was in most of the states in the Southern states, until case law "Loving v. Virginia" which happened in 1967.

Just as Loving v Virginia made it legal for inter-racial marriages, any bill that is passed to legalize same sex marriage will become case law.

We give married couples the advantage of them sharing medical insurances, and filing joint income taxes. We should also allow "partners" to do the same. We should not discriminate against people for any reason, including their sexual preferences.

Again, it is legal for a person to have a surgical, physical sex change to marry a person of his/her former sex. So, what's the difference if the same person does not have a surgical, physical sex change?????

[Nobunaga]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

In Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court stated that "...The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " and called marriage a "fundamental freedom". Of course, Loving v. Virgina was a case about interracial marriage and not same sex marriages.

Hi Adri,
I have a friend, who is Okinawan, who married a Caucasian woman in 1962, prior to Loving v. Virginia. They tried to marry in Missouri, but could not, so they drove up to Iowa where they could legally marry.

Of course, Loving v Virginia is a case law governing inter-racial marriages, but the passing of any bill by Congress as far as same sex marriage will have the same impact as any case law.

It is time for us to end discrimination against the gay population. Unless we can prove that gay behavior is a choice, we should not discriminate against anyone because they are born with a different skin color or sexual preference.
Nobu

[salmoned]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

I cannot agree with your belief that marriage is not a human right. As long as you are not presently married, no one can legally stop you from getting legally married.

Okay, I'm a six year old girl and I want to marry my widowed father/mother or my teacher (whom also wants to marry me) - you say no one can stop us? Also, why the restriction of 'not presently being married'? If marriage is a human right, why do you feel there ought to be some restrictions and not others? If marriage as a human right should be restricted, why do you feel gender shouldn't be one of those restrictions and singularity should be one of those restrictions (other than your personal/cultural belief)? If two persons want to marry one another, why can't 20? The two person limitation is much more aggregious than the same gender restriction with regard to the history and sanctity of marriage as a supposed 'human right'.

Finally, should we be sanctioning other countries that allow/recognize plural marriages or don't allow/recognize homosexual marriages as acting contrary to human rights? I think not. If we, as a country, intend to designate marriage as a human right, we'd ought to strive to affirm that right for all humans everywhere and equally. If marriage is just a cultural and/or legal rite, then no worries - every country can freely set their own rules without infringing on anyone's human rights.

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Okay, I'm a six year old girl and I want to marry my widowed father/mother or my teacher (whom also wants to marry me) - you say no one can stop us? Also, why the restriction of 'not presently being married'? If marriage is a human right, why do you feel there ought to be some restrictions and not others? If marriage as a human right should be restricted, why do you feel gender shouldn't be one of those restrictions and singularity should be one of those restrictions (other than your personal/cultural belief)? If two persons want to marry one another, why can't 20? The two person limitation is much more aggregious than the same gender restriction with regard to the history and sanctity of marriage as a supposed 'human right'. /snip

I don't think anyone here has argued that marriage should be completely without restriction. I would hope that most of us would agree that marriage based on force or based upon an inability to competently consent or object to the marriage is not acceptable. The reason marriage is currently not allowed for children is because we currently believe that children are unable to make competent decisions including the decision about whether to consent to a marriage (and animals and dead people and severely mentally impaired or comatose people are not able to competently consent to a marriage). That is not to say that there have never in the history of humans been child marriages. But the human rights aspect of marriage, if one is considering human rights and marriages, must turn upon willing and competent consent rather than coercion or the inability to object. Forcing someone to marry against their will or when they lack the ability to competently consent is a violation of human rights, too. I do agree, however, that the prohibition against polygamy between competent and consenting adults (as opposed to adults who are raised from infancy to believe that if they do not participate in plural marriages they will never to go heaven or who have no real choice in the marriage) is probably based upon our cultural beliefs.

In order for the government to prevent competent, consenting adults from marrying, the government has to show that there is a legitimate, rational, compelling basis for such a ban that outweighs the individuals rights to marry and the basis cannot be "because a certain religion objects to it". So far, the government (and particularly the government of Hawaii) has fallen flat on trying to prove a legitimate compelling rational basis for banning same sex marriages that outweighs individuals rights to marry. Hence the result in Baehr v. Miike.

[anapuni808]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

what is the problem with understanding that same sex marriage and civil unions are totally different and separate? this is where the conversation gets confusing.

[Nobunaga]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Okay, I'm a six year old girl and I want to marry my widowed father/mother or my teacher (whom also wants to marry me) - you say no one can stop us? Also, why the restriction of 'not presently being married'? If marriage is a human right, why do you feel there ought to be some restrictions and not others? If marriage as a human right should be restricted, why do you feel gender shouldn't be one of those restrictions and singularity should be one of those restrictions (other than your personal/cultural belief)? If two persons want to marry one another, why can't 20? The two person limitation is much more aggregious than the same gender restriction with regard to the history and sanctity of marriage as a supposed 'human right'.

Finally, should we be sanctioning other countries that allow/recognize plural marriages or don't allow/recognize homosexual marriages as acting contrary to human rights? I think not. If we, as a country, intend to designate marriage as a human right, we'd ought to strive to affirm that right for all humans everywhere and equally. If marriage is just a cultural and/or legal rite, then no worries - every country can freely set their own rules without infringing on anyone's human rights.

The key word in my post prior, is legally. In this country, marriages have an age limit. It also has laws against incest. There are countries, however, that allow marriages betwen children, and adults and children. Of course, we consider it barbaric, but you will find very young children legally marrying adults in some Arab countries.

If you are unmarried, you no one can legally stop you from legally getting married.

[Nobunaga]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

what is the problem with understanding that same sex marriage and civil unions are totally different and separate? this is where the conversation gets confusing.

Basically, it is the same thing. I don't think the people opposed to gay marriages are only opposed to two men, or two women formally walking down the aisle in a church and getting married. I really think they are also opposed to giving gay couples the same benefits of marriage that our law gives to married heteral couples such as sharing medical benefits and filing joint income taxes, or possibly being able to adopt a child.

While I was once opposed to gay couples adopting a child, I do know of a gay couple, (male) who did adopt a child in California. The child is straight, and the arrangement seems to be working without any problems.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Is marriage a human right? I say no, it's a cultural and/or legal rite.

I think salmoned is right on the mark here, and Adri's quote from the SCOTUS just strengthens the "legal" and "civil" aspect of it.

... the US Supreme Court stated that "...The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " and called marriage a "fundamental freedom".

It's a dangerous path to confuse "human rights" with cultural/legal ones. Human rights are a very small set, things that everyone (within a specific culture, I might add - there are other cultures that disagree with what Americans consider "human rights," and who is to say that we in America get to set the rules here?) agrees all people are entitled to - most famously, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I think most Americans would also include things like shelter, sustenance, a certain level of education.

As long as you are not presently married, no one can legally stop you from getting legally married.

But to state that marriage is a "human right" is to take it into the wrong category. If you go that far, you can't argue that there should be a huge subset of legal "limits" to that right.

what is the problem with understanding that same sex marriage and civil unions are totally different and separate?

Basically, it is the same thing.

This is at the core of the debate. As anapuni808 points out, they are NOT the same thing. For many years, our nation used to permit discriminatory behavior by using the "basically the same thing" argument. It was called "Separate But Equal."

The bus was going to one destination, so it was "basically the same thing" even if you were forced to sit in the back; the fountains were both expelling water, so it was "basically the same thing" even if you were only permitted to drink from the one on the left, and could be arrested or murdered for doing otherwise.

We don't condone that type of behavior any longer, yet we still allow discrimination of other kinds in America - simply because a large group of people feel "ooogy" when they think about it.

[sansei]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

hi,just spoke with my eldest sis and she shared that where she live's,

they are fighting against the civil union's bill as a ban and my eldest sis agree's and i shared with her that we may either have the ban kept on or that someone maybe a senator or a citycouncil person may fight agaisnt the civil union's so that we'd have a ban and no same gender or civill union's marriage here and my eldest sis agree's.

well thank's for your time

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

I think it's a mistake to categorize "human rights" as separate and apart from civil rights and legal rights. Per Amnesty International, "Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties. (emphasis added).

The definition of "human rights" is surprisingly consistent among many different countries, not just America.
Human rights are generally defined as rights which should be held by all human beings. "The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law" "The conditions and expectations to which every person, by virtue of his or her existence as a human being, is entitled.""These are the rights that every human being automatically qualifies for at birth. They cannot be denied because of the colour of one's skin, religion, age or other personal factors. Central to the concept of human rights is the protection of human dignity. .."

One of the main arguments for same sex marriages hinges upon the "equality before the law".

That is not to say that actions are consistent with those definitions in every country. At least some people agree that the right not to be enslaved is a fundamental human right. Yet people have been enslaved. Arguably, people were enslaved here in Hawaii very recently working on certain farms. How do we enforce the right not to be enslaved? By our laws. Just because there needed to be a law preventing slavery does not mean that slavery is not a human right. Just because we call freedom from slavery a civil right does not mean it is not a human right.

anapuni808: I agree; marriage and civil unions are different things. But one of the blockages to civil unions is the fear that it's just a step towards marriage and so the conversation inevitably includes the discussion about marriage. and frankly, I don't see why same sex couples should not be allowed to get married in a religious as well as legal ceremony if they can find a church or religious organization or religious person willing to perform the ceremony. Not that religious groups or religious people should be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their beliefs. However, there have been ministers and priests and even churches as groups who have said they were willing to perform same sex marriages. If they are willing, then how do the "don't impose your beliefs on my religion" people justify trying to impose their beliefs on someone else's religion?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Per Amnesty International, "Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

"The conditions and expectations to which every person, by virtue of his or her existence as a human being, is entitled."

First, while I admire and respect the great work carried out by Amnesty International, I can not imagine that the issue of same-sex marriage in America is on their agenda, particularly in light of their higher-priority concerns with the welfare of oppressed individuals worldwide.

Another way to look at defining human rights is to consider: without this specific right, how severely will the quality of an individual's life be adversely affected?

Suppose I really, really want a top-of-the-line flat-screen HDTV, and I can argue until I'm blue that my life is a cesspool of suffering without one. You might share my desire for such a device, even to the point of being empathetic to my "suffering" - but you aren't likely to claim that I have a "human right" to such a TV.

I have lived with my opposite-gender partner for 15 years. We are not married (and do not live in a common-law state, so don't bother tossing that into the mix), but we live and function practically as if we were. No law blocks us from our happy cohabitation, just as no law prevents us from getting married.

We enjoy most of the benefits of a married partnership, with the exception of a small handful of legal, civil and cultural ones; in the more enlightened regions of today's America, the same have been extended to homosexual couples, and they are able to live with that "fundamental" freedom of a happy relationship.

If my partner and I want that small handful of legal, civil and cultural benefits of a legal marriage, nothing (thanks to Loving v. Virginia) prevents us from doing so - we simply choose not to. However, if our same-sex friends want those benefits, they are still banned from receiving many of them in most states. They can, in more and more places, enter into "civil unions," which grant them many of the same rights as a marriage --- but it is still NOT "marriage" defined as the same as my partner and I can enter into.

I do not desire the small handful of legal, civil and cultural benefits of marriage; so be it. If my gay friends want them, I support them in the battle to obtain them.

But I continue to emphasize the phrase "legal, civil and cultural" benefits, because that's what they are. The lack of them does not cause the same damage to quality of life as would the denial of food, shelter, education or personal liberty, to use a few examples.

That is how I define the difference of human rights - by the quality-of-life question. YMMV.

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Leo Lakio: I respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion with you. This is not a further argument on my part, just a clarification of my previous post. The entire Amnesty International quote is:

"Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties."

Since the end quotation mark dropped off the second paragraph, I wanted to be clear that the second paragraph is part of the AI quote.

eta: Same sex marriage is on AI's agenda and not just with regard to America but world wide. Per AI, "Civil marriage between individuals of the same-sex is an issue in which fundamental human rights are at stake. Amnesty International believes that the denial of equal civil recognition of same-sex relationships prevents many people from accessing a range of other rights, such as rights to housing and social security, and stigmatizes those relationships in ways that can fuel discrimination and other human rights abuses against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
" (http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human....do?id=1551077)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-u...age-2010-07-15

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-u...nia-2010-02-26

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.p...0415003&lang=e

http://thereport.amnesty.org/regions/africa

and so forth. The people drafting and maintaining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations are also considering the issue of same sex marriage.