Civil Unions - The new Separate but Equal?

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 18, 2008 at 10:53pm

I agree or as I tell my Republican friends gay people deserve the same rights as straight people to be miserable. Sadly many are willing to settle for civil unions (AKA marriage light).

Permalink Reply by Ben Felton on August 19, 2008 at 1:05pm

I would prefer that "marriage" be the religious institution (as different religions have different ideas of what "marriage" should mean), and "civil union" should be what the government gives to ANY couple, regardless of gender, who want the legal benefits/drawbacks of entering into a contract that will determine how the government views their finances, possessions, etc.
Let churches decide whether they want to "marry" straight or gay couples. Let them refuse any couple that doesn't meet their religious criteria for marriage.
It's not "marriage" that should be a civil right. But any couple should have a civil right to a "union".

Permalink Reply by Jerry B. on August 19, 2008 at 5:43pm

Since the Federal Government, in innumerable laws and statutes, provides benefits and considerations based on marriage (not civil unions), and has gone so far as to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman - without mentioning the need for religious permission or ceremony - I'd have to say that marriage is pretty firmly entrenched in the civil sphere. "Holy Matrimony" may be a religious institution, but marriage, and the privileges that accrue from marriage, is currently available to hetrosexual couples with no religious affiliation. Why not same-sex couples?

Besides, no one is saying that a particular church should be forced to perform, or even approve of, same-sex marriages. There are plenty of churches and civil authorities willing to do so.

Permalink Reply by Mark Stoneman on August 19, 2008 at 7:03pm

I get the separate but equal thing, but this is a pretty conservative society. I should think an incremental approach to the issue in the states would make the most sense. Of course, that might not be possible, given that in many states there is an open movement to make any kind of union illegal. Presumably much of that will be unconstitutional, but I would rather see this taken care of in the political realm.

As far as Obama goes, he cannot afford to take up the call for this issue. No national candidate can and still get elected. I can live with that, but I do think that much needs to be done about property rights, children, and a host of other issues to give same-sex couples equality. Whether or not that is called "marriage" doesn't matter to me.

But Jerry makes an important point about the federal government. I know people who could get married in Massachusetts, for example, but the federal government will not recognize the union. That has tax implications. It also can split up couples if one is not a US citizen, since such couples will not have the same rights to a green card as heterosexual married couples.

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 19, 2008 at 7:56pm

It also comes down to why should we have an incremental approach to right. I agree, Obama can't run on it but I wish he would.

Permalink Reply by Mark Stoneman on August 19, 2008 at 8:11pm

In a parliamentary system, taking a clear stance on such an issue is possible, because one reaches the compromises with other parties to form a governing coalition. But in a presidential system where one only needs a plurality of votes, it would be political suicide.

That said, things do change. The Obama-Clinton race made that clear. Things are also changing in the military, where I have now even seen a voice against "don't ask don't tell" in favor of just not caring about sexuality.

Permalink Reply by Jo Arpee on August 20, 2008 at 4:01pm

I agree with you, Ben. I'd like to see a little more separation between church and state that what we have currently. Let's require everyone (heterosexual, homosexual, atheist, or religious) to have a civil union and then leave "Holy Matrimony" for the religious if they choose. Of course I can't see that happening any time soon.

However, no gay couple needs the state to marry them for them to have the rights and privileges of marriage. They can go to any attorney now and draw up a contract between themselves. They can have hospital visiting rights by giving each other Medical Power of Attorney.

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Young, Sr on August 22, 2008 at 1:14am

I'm still trying to understand how same sex marriage threatens male/female marriages. And considering the state of marriage in the US (50% end in divorce) there seem to be other threats much more dangerous to one man/ one woman than same sex couples.

Permalink Reply by andersch on August 22, 2008 at 4:28pm

I would like Sen. Obama to answer the following question:
"Would your parents have voted for a presedential candidate who believed that it was okay for states to outlaw interracial marriage, as some states did at the time they were married? If not, why should my domestic partner (of 11 years) and I vote for you?"
It saddens me terribly that he states publicly that couples like me and my partner are not his moral equals. My only solace is that--a) he's better on almost every other issue than McCain; and b) I have to assume he doesn't *really* believe that gay marriage should not be legal and that he only holds that position because of the politicla reality. That's pretty cold comfort in my book.
-Chris
Washington, DC

Permalink Reply by Giovanna on September 9, 2008 at 12:01am

So well said!!!!! thank you,

Permalink Reply by Carlin on September 9, 2008 at 3:38pm

There are actually many rights and privileges of marriage that can not be "contracted." A medical power of attorney or a will can only cover limited issues. In order for gay people to have the same rights as married hetrosexuals, they would also have to be able to marry each other.

Permalink Reply by Horus on September 10, 2008 at 10:36am

I think this question is one of libertarian society or democratic society. In a true democracy all kinds of things can be illegal or legal depending on the will of the people. Morality of the masses is all that matters at the time. A libertarian society tries to create a set of morals and force people to live by those morals whether the morals of the people change or not.

America tries to mix both, but they do not work well together. Technically if the majority of voters say no to gay marriage then the democratic answer should be no. Anything other than that would be undemocratic. I would guess till we have a mass vote on the subject put to the people the decision will remain in limbo.

Got to love Thomas Paine and the social contract. Do not like the will of the "democracy"...go start your own democracy.