Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

/snip 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.

But our Supreme court held, in Loving v. Virginia, that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Now there are people who say that Loving cannnot be extended to same sex marriages (or civil unions) especially because of the focus on procreation but we don't require that all people who marry now be able and willing to procreate before we allow them to marry. Further, the fact is that in the Hawaii Supreme Court same sex marriage case, Baehr v. Miike, the Court also held that it was a violation of the State Constitution's equal protection clause and that the opponents did not provide a compelling reason (which I take to mean a compelling non-religious reason) for denying same sex marriage. This case was ultiimately mooted by us amending our Constitution to give the legislature the right to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. As I suspect Lingle is well aware, this Constitutional amendment will bar her "everyone should vote on such an important issue" stance since the last time every qualified voter got to vote on the issue, the voters reserved the right to define marriage to the legislature. Unless we amend our Constitution yet again.

[honobob]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

http://sanfranciscochronicle.ca.news...8b5c1571c5dd2e

See page C-2 All this done against two people in a 20 year committed relationship AND with their power of attorney ignored. Why would anyone want to deny these men the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple?

http://sanfranciscochronicle.ca.news...8b5c1571c5dd2e

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Why would anyone want to deny these men the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple?

Because it's a concept that they misunderstand and it frightens them. Because it goes against what their church/political/media leaders tell them they should believe/follow/do.

When you are confronted with behaviors and activities that are different from what you were raised with, it's very difficult for adult humans to make changes in attitude.

All we can do is work to educate others as to why we feel something needs to be changed - we can't force them to accept our perspective as their own. But time and continued efforts have succeeded before, which is how we have, as a nation, established rights for people who were disenfranchised and discriminated against in the past.


P.S.) Honobob's link requires a login.

[honobob]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Sorry, thought the link worked. Here's the article. I think it's important for people who think you can accomplish the same rights as marriage by legal documents.


SONOMA COUNTY

Suit by elderly gay couple to be settled

By Bob Egelko

CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER

Clay Greene, a 78-yearold gay man, said Sonoma County forced him and his 88-year-old partner into separate nursing homes, denied the couple’s relationship, sold off their possessions and kept them apart until the partner died.

The county denied violating the men’s rights. But on Friday, Greene’s lawyers said the county and a nursing home had agreed to a $653,000 settlement with Greene and the estate of Harold Scull, his partner of 20 years.

“This victory sends an unmistakable message that all elders must be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that those who mistreat elders must be held accountable,’’ said attorney Amy Todd-Gher of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, which represented Greene.

The county said it agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense of a trial. There was no “credible evidence of discrimination or misconduct,’’ the county Human Services Department said in a statement.

Scull was hospitalized in April 2008. Greene said his partner fell down the front steps of their Sebastopol home. The county public guardian’s office said Scull accused Greene of domestic violence, an allegation disputed by Greene’s lawyers and a representative of Scull’s estate.

According to the lawsuit, the public guardian’s office went to court to obtain conservatorship of Scull, whose mental health was deteriorating, and described Greene in court papers as Scull’s roommate, ignoring the powers of attorney both men had signed.

After moving Scull to an assisted living facility, the guardian’s office had Greene confined in a nursing home, falsely describing him as demented and referring to him in his presence as a “crazy old man,’’ the suit said.

County officials proceeded to terminate the men’s lease on their home and auction off all their possessions, including art works, furniture, heirlooms and their bank accounts, the suit said.

Scull died in August 2008. Greene’s lawyers said the partners never saw one another after they were separated.

In its statement Friday, the county said Scull had expressed fear about returning home to Greene. The guardian’s office moved him to an adult care facility “because of his frailty, and in compliance with his wishes,’’ the county said.

“The public guardian is, and always has been dedicated to protecting vulnerable seniors who have nowhere else to turn,’’ the county said.

Janette Biggerstaff, executor of Scull’s estate and a longtime friend of the couple, responded that the tragedy that befell them “was made worse by the county spreading such terrible lies about Clay.’’

The county agreed to pay $600,000, if supervisors approve the settlement next month, and Greene’s nursing home will pay $53,000, his lawyers said. They said the settlement also prohibits the public guardian’s office from moving people against their will.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Denying it violated the men’s rights, the county agreed to pay $600,000 in the forced separation.


I've got to think there's some mean spiritedness in their actions.

[honobob]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-californias-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitution/?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politic sdaily.com%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Fprop-8-californias-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitution%2F

In California it's unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage. Now where's my flying car? The future is here!

[Kalalau]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

The case was decided on equal protection, as it should have been. It is truly gratifying to see that nice words in our Constitution have real effect. Now, if we can stop the move by the Republicans to repeal the 14th Amendment, because Mexicans are this week's target for the public to hate, we might all rest a lot easier. I don't think they will have much luck repealing the 14th, but you can never tell what a panic stricken, hate filled mob might do.

[matapule]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

my eldest sis shared with me that even where she reside's,when they only have couple's only living together without marriage,the childern are somewhat unable to say who they would call mom and dad and it wouldnt be mom and mom or dad and dad

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... .

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

My daughter has spent years as a child psychologist. Research and her personal experience has confirmed that marriage, parent gender, sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with the well being of dependent children. Examples and anecdotal evidence can be found to support good and bad parenting of any sexual orientation, alternative lifestyle, or personal convictions. Mature, loving adults make good parents regardless of gender or lifestyle philosophy.

It is truly gratifying to see that nice words in our Constitution have real effect.

The California case WILL go to the Supreme Court. My greatest fear is that the Supreme Court will uphold the California law on a 5 - 4 decision. Thanks Dubya for your appointments!

Now, if we can stop the move by the Republicans to repeal the 14th Amendment, because Mexicans are this week's target for the public to hate, we might all rest a lot easier. I don't think they will have much luck repealing the 14th, but you can never tell what a panic stricken, hate filled mob might do.

My uaifi's paternal grandfather and grandmother were illegal immigrants from the Ukraine. I told her if the Republicans get their way on the 14th Amendment, she can kiss her usi sayonara! Damned if I'm going to visit her in Kiev!

[Kalalau]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

I don't think I have mentioned that I attended a gay wedding. It was a civil ceremony, two guys in their 80's, who have been together since the 1950's, tied the knot. One in a wheel chair, the other with a cane. I gave them a big bouquet. It was deeply touching, I was glad to be a part of their ceremony confirming their deeply held love and respect for each other. How much they must treasure each other to stay together for so long. What in the name of God is wrong with recognizing and yes, praising that kind of love and dedication? Bless their happiness, may all who marry be as happy as they are.

[1stwahine]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

Kalalau,

Mahalo for sharing such a beautiful, loving story.

Auntie Lynn

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

My greatest fear is that the Supreme Court will uphold the California law on a 5 - 4 decision. Thanks Dubya for your appointments!

One of the republican appointees, I forget who, is a known gay man, so you may luck out.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

One of the republican appointees, I forget who, is a known gay man, so you may luck out.

I think you might be referring to the judge in California who ruled against Prop. 8. A Reagan/Bush appointee, his sexuality is considered an "open secret," and if it wasn't challenged earlier on, it can't be done so retroactively by those upset with the ruling. Hah!

You know what I'm still waiting for in this whole debate? For someone to outline for me exactly how allowing someone homosexual to marry is a threat to their own heterosexual marriage.

[sansei]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

hi,i wish to share that the childern of parent's who were married traditionally that their grandkid's would be confused and they wouldnt know who truly to call dad and dad or mom and mom or dad and mom and that's the truth.

im not being unkind only sharing the truth.


well thank's for your time

[Peshkwe]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

hi,i wish to share that the childern of parent's who were married traditionally that their grandkid's would be confused and they wouldnt know who truly to call dad and dad or mom and mom or dad and mom and that's the truth.

im not being unkind only sharing the truth.


well thank's for your time

That's 'cause they'd call em Great GrandMa and Great GrandPa

[Adri]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

This is the court ruling

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

The people arguing in the hearing in support of Prop 8 needed to do a better job if they had any hope of winning. This is from the ruling linked above in the section setting forth the proponents' defense of Prop 8 (it was one of the arguments made by the proponents that "marriage is procreative" and thus same sex marriage should not be allowed:

"At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary
judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption
that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired
how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that
interest.Doc #228 at 21.Counsel replied that the inquiry was
“not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an
answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know.
I don’t know.”Id at 23."

[escondido100]

Re: Should Civil Unions Be Legalized?

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.