Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

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

  • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

    Originally posted by Adri View Post
    Interesting that a federal judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as violating states' rights. While I am not unhappy that DOMA is being challenged, I fear that this may not be a good precedent for other issues.
    In any case, the legal battle is far from over. That judge's decision only affects Massachusetts. Somewhere down the line, the case is likely to be appealed to and decided on by a higher court.
    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


    • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

      I think our conservative Republican supreme ct will take the opportunity of hearing any appeal to reinstate all sodomy laws.

      Comment


      • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

        hi,i spoke with my eldest sis and she know's from viewing tv how our local gov vetoe'd the civil union's bill and where she live's,they had the same problem and she believe's in her heart that marriage is sacred between one gentleman and one lady.

        when my deceased father once shared with me that marriage is sacred,i imoht know from his time and my grandfather's time that it was sacred.i know these day's it's somewhat different only i myself believe that marriage is sacred.


        well thank's for your time

        Comment


        • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

          Cool. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Isn't it great to live in a free country!

          Comment


          • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

            If opposite-gender marriage is so "sacred," why do so many conservatives and self-proclaimed religious leaders have extra-marital affairs and divorces?

            Yes, I know, so do liberals and atheists - but they aren't the ones demanding that their "family values" agendas be crammed down everyone else's throats.

            Hypocritical bullshit.

            Comment


            • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

              I have read at least three times the 2010 version of HB 444, while it has language in the bill for people entering into a civil union it has no language in it to exit an existing civil union.

              This measure needs further work otherwise it is going to cause more problems.

              Comment


              • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                I have no problem with civil unions for same sex couples. I've seen the tragedy of loss wherein loved ones were prevented from access due to the "family only" policy. (Which is a crap policy in hospitals). However, were a new word devised to identify the legal (and emotional) connection that it is, I feel there would be less animosity toward the goal. "Marriage" is the problem. Let that word be for men and women. "A New Word" could describe the same situation for 2 men, or a "A Different Word" for 2 women.

                For Example

                I am the husband, Mr. Jones. This is my wife Mrs. Jones. We just got married.

                OR (these are pretend words, but we need real ones)

                I am the hurban, Mr. Jones. This is my hurbat, Mr. Jones. We just got hurbode.

                OR (for the ladies in the house, please something more flowery)

                I am the lido, Ms. Jones. This is my lidada, Mrs. Jones. We just got lidolled.

                See what I mean? 2 new words, or even one if guys and girls can agree on something that sounds right. I sincerely think the word "marriage" is the crux of the problem. "Marriage" by definition has meant a man and woman. Don't change the meaning of an existing word. Rather, come up with new words.

                Because what kind of heartless harda$$ would prevent somebody from attending the bed side in the Emergency Room while the love of their life passes in tragic circumstances. (Don't get me angry on this one.)
                Last edited by timkona; July 10, 2010, 08:01 PM. Reason: forgot to underline the girls part
                FutureNewsNetwork.com
                Energy answers are already here.

                Comment


                • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                  Egads...I so agree with you, Tim! Is the sky falling?! But, isn't "civil union" that "new word" (phrase) that removes the word "marriage"? I have a good friend who refers to his same sex significant other as his "hubble". It works for them so it works for me!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                    Why is it always so shocking for anybody on HT when they agree with me on something??

                    Geeeesssszzzzhhhhh, I'm not really that bad.


                    Am I?
                    FutureNewsNetwork.com
                    Energy answers are already here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                      Originally posted by timkona View Post
                      I have no problem with civil unions for same sex couples. I've seen the tragedy of loss wherein loved ones were prevented from access due to the "family only" policy. (Which is a crap policy in hospitals).
                      I must have missed that in my 25 years of emergency nursing. I have seen a lot of folks come in and leave this world, and never have I seen anyone, family or friend of any stripe, be barred from attending the birth/death of their loved one. I have read of this happening, but I have never seen or heard of it anywhere I have worked. (Maybe it happens in other departments...) I could not imagine a more cruel thing to do to a dying person than to withhold their loved one. Now back to the topic.


                      Originally posted by timkona View Post
                      See what I mean? 2 new words, or even one if guys and girls can agree on something that sounds right. I sincerely think the word "marriage" is the crux of the problem. "Marriage" by definition has meant a man and woman. Don't change the meaning of an existing word. Rather, come up with new words.
                      Originally posted by tutusue View Post
                      Egads...I so agree with you, Tim! Is the sky falling?! But, isn't "civil union" that "new word" (phrase) that removes the word "marriage"? I have a good friend who refers to his same sex significant other as his "hubble". It works for them so it works for me!
                      I can't think of the descriptive individual terms, but

                      "We just got civilized!"

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                        Originally posted by cyleet99 View Post
                        I have read of this happening...
                        And for those who may not have, here are some examples. See how these stories make some of you feel.


                        Seattle, Washington, 2006: When the basement of Kate Fleming and Charlene Strong’s home flooded, Kate, an award-winning audio book narrator and producer, ran into the basement to retrieve her recording equipment. The force of the rising water slammed shut the basement door and, horrifically, left Kate trapped. After her body was retrieved from the waters, paramedics began cardiopulmonary resuscitation and transferred Kate to the nearby trauma center. When Charlene arrived at the hospital, she was stopped by one of the emergency department social workers before she could enter Kate’s room. After stating she was Kate’s life partner, Charlene was told that she was not Kate’s official next-of-kin. In fact, the social worker explained, Charlene could not be allowed into the treatment room until receiving permission to do so from the person legally considered her next-of-kin. In vain, Charlene explained that she and Kate had been together for 10 years and that they even had a commitment ceremony to celebrate their relationship. However, hospital staff forced Charlene to begin trying to contact her partner’s sister for permission to enter the room. Gaining access to Kate’s family was no easy task. Both Kate and Charlene’s cell phones were in the flooded and collapsed basement, along with all of their family’s phone numbers, many of which were unlisted. Several hours after being in the ICU, Kate’s heart stopped. The critical care team began trying to resuscitate Kate while other members of the hospital staff explained events to Charlene. With the permission of Kate’s sister finally secured, Charlene made the unimaginably painful decision to discontinue further efforts and allow Kate to die. During the conversations that occurred around the time of Kate’s death, nurses involved in her care questioned the validity of Charlene’s role in decision making, given that she was “somebody who was not even family” and in fact was “just [Kate’s] partner.”


                        Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, 2007: Lisa Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm, and her partner of 18 years, Janice Langbehn, and their four adopted children, were prohibited from seeing her. Langbehn had power of attorney for Pond, but hospital officials still refused. Pond died before most of her loved ones were allowed into her hospital room; Langbehn was allowed one five-minute visit when a priest administered last rites. (The family were Washington State residents, but were in Florida for a cruise vacation.)


                        Minnesota, 1983: Sharon Kowalski’s car was struck in a head-on collision with a drunk driver. For the first several hours after the accident, Karen Thompson, Sharon’s life partner, was denied basic information about whether Sharon had even survived. Karen had no rights to question the extent of Sharon’s injuries or expectation of recovery, and all information was instead communicated directly to Sharon’s father. Sadly, the accident left Sharon with devastating neurological injuries and in need of 24-hour care.Karen was not allowed to see Sharon for a full three and a half years after the accident. According to Karen, when she was eventually granted visitation rights, the visits were overseen by a staff escort, out of concern that Karen—with whom Sharon had shared vows of a lifetime commitment—could be sexually abusive toward her partner. Almost a decade of judicial battles for guardianship between Karen and Sharon’s biological family ensued. Despite the intense, overt homophobia exhibited by the Kowalski family and supporting witnesses, Karen’s perseverance prevailed. Sharon ultimately returned home with her life partner in 1993, setting an important precedent in the United States.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                          Thank you. Those cases remind me of cases from the era of racial segregation when injured Black people would die on the way to a Black only hospital when a Whites Only hospital was nearby. Sometimes it didn't work out quite like the white people would have wanted--injured whites would die on the way to a whites only hospital when there was a Blacks only hospital nearby. And sometimes in the madness of the heat of the desert a scorpion will sting itself to death.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                            When my Wife died this past February she had her ducks lined up very well. We all should have a power of attorney , an advanced medical directive and a will in place to assist the survivors. I believe here in Hawaii any wishes would be honored, other states I don't know.
                            That said, I do not like the fact that any persons in any relationship could be prevented from fulfilling their desires by a bigoted state authorized set of rules or lack of rules.

                            In the past the United States was known throughout the World as an Enlightened nation. The abolition of slavery, done by legislative action not by popular vote, Women"s suffrage done by legislative action not by popular vote, (Constitutional amendments are passed by congress and then ratified by enough states to become an amendment.), laws that prevent abuse of family members done by legislative action, not by popular vote.
                            This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. My parents would not have wanted "civil unions" back in their day but I don't live my life by my parents model. Frankly, it is hypocritical of people of faith to limit other citizens rights. Just because people are bigots does not mean the Elected representatives should not carry out the correct action.

                            If this "civil union" bill is sent to the people, the churches and conservative organizations will flood our community with money to spend on media advertising to prevent its passage. That, my friends, is not democracy.

                            Since I used this word repeatedly in this post I thought a proper definition was called for. Know any bigots?
                            bigot - A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion, system, or party, and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                              Originally posted by ongre View Post
                              In the past the United States was known throughout the World as an Enlightened nation. The abolition of slavery, done by legislative action not by popular vote,
                              Actually, slavery in the U.S. was abolished through a war.

                              Originally posted by ongre View Post
                              Women"s suffrage done by legislative action not by popular vote, (Constitutional amendments are passed by congress and then ratified by enough states to become an amendment.), laws that prevent abuse of family members done by legislative action, not by popular vote.
                              Now this, I can agree with. It's infinitely more reasonable sounding than your earlier, "If popular vote was the determining factor we would still be able to own slaves" statement. Seeing as how Barack Obama garnered a majority of the popular vote in this country in order to become President, I think it is a safe assumption to say that attitudes re: the institution of slavery have changed greatly since 1860. There's no need to resort to gross exaggeration in order to make your point.

                              Originally posted by ongre View Post
                              If this "civil union" bill is sent to the people, the churches and conservative organizations will flood our community with money to spend on media advertising to prevent its passage. That, my friends, is not democracy.
                              And next, you'll be arguing how pigs can actually fly?

                              Any vote that is put to the people is an example of the democratic process in action. To say otherwise is to not be grounded in reality.

                              Here's the real issue: Voting majorities don't always make decisions that are wise and/or fair to minorities. And this is where legislative action and judicial rulings have come into play in order to correct inequities.

                              Remember. Democracy doesn't mean getting the results that you desire all of the time. And it definitely doesn't guarantee that it will produce results that will make 100% of the populace happy.

                              I'm actually in support of civil union arrangement for the gay/lesbian community. However, I think there's a need for a clear grasp on the real issues in order to educate the public. Resorting to "the sky is green and the grass is blue" kind of rhetoric does nothing to promote understanding and awareness on this topic.
                              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


                              • Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

                                Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                                Actually, slavery in the U.S. was abolished through a war.
                                No, actually, ongre was correct. Slavery in the U.S. was abolished by the 13th Amendment, the first of the Reconstruction Amendments. President Lincoln recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed quickly by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X