Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

More proof that all the talk about civil unions as an alternative to marriage recognition for gay people is a lot of bunk. A legislative committee that was charged with studying the issue in New Hampshire has rejected a proposal to recommend adoption of civil union legislation similar to that enacted in the neighboring state of Vermont.

It just becomes clearer and clearer to me that the counterarguments suggesting gay couples should be happy with mostly non-existant civil unions is nothing but a distraction to muddy the debate surrounding recognition of their marriages.

Look for more states to ban both civil unions and marriage recognition for same-gendered couples in the next few years. It's pretty clear where the country is headed on this question.

[Trajan]

I don't get it. What are they so afraid of?

[F'losrix]

And, as expected, Texas has now also banned civil unions right along with recognition of gay marriages. So apparently it's not about 'protecting marriage'. It's about making sure gay couples get nothing.

[F'losrix]

There's a real 'split personality' situation taking place on gay issues in the U.S. It appears that Maine's third try at enacting a ban on anti-gay discrimination has withstood a challenge at the polls.

Within the last month or so we've seen activisst judges in Indiana and Missouri rule against two lesbian couples, one seeking to become foster parents and the other seeking to adopt the foster child already in their care. Both rulings in spite of neither state having laws that ban same-sex couples from becoming foster parents or adopting.

While it's apparent that some people think there should be no discrimination on the basics like employment and housing, they clearly can't bring themselves to consider the committed relationships of gay couples as being equivalent to heterosexual marriages and deserving of recognition. They can't even begin to wrap their minds around the idea of gay couples raising children. They view it as a totally alien concept despite the fact that gay couples have been doing it successfully for decades in defiance of a legal system that more often penalizes than helps these families.

Meanwhile, we have an emboldened group of religious extremists who think it's perfectly fine to burn a gay flag in front of a gay-owned restaurant as an exercise in intimidation disguised as first-amendment protected protest in Indiana.

In Pennsylvania, a gang of teens attack a gay man while yelling anti-gay slurs and he kills one of them in the ensuing struggle, so now he's charged with voluntary manslaughter and could get a jail sentence of 30 years.

And we also get an announcement that a senate sub-committee is going to move forward on the proposal for a federal amendment banning gay marriage.

Today is shaping up to be one of those not-so-good days for news impacting gay people.

[Dragoon]

You can try to stop progress and may even halt it for a time but one day it will succeed. I have confidence that one day gays will be viewed as equals under the law. It might no happen anytime soon, but it will happen.

[LandOfHypocrisy]

Some kind of seperation of "marriage" from a "civil union" is eventually going to have to take place for all people. The "civil union" being the Governments recognition of the couple, and a "marriage" being the religious sanctification of the couple. Religious organizations are too different to work with any other model.

Take for example Catholic Anullments. Catholics divorces and remarriages are very strict, and require an anullment after a divorce in order to let a Catholic remarry in the Catholic church. From a Government standpoint, the state recognizes the "union" of any Catholics that remarry without an anullment. This puts government policy on marriage in direct contrast and potentially conflict with the Catholic Church.

Or consider Orthodox Jewish marriages, which require that both participants be recognized members of the Jewish faith. Same problem. The state recognizes any union between an Orthodox Jew and non-Jew, but of course the that wouldn't be in keeping with the tenets of that religion. It creates the potential for religious discontent.

So there is a need for a state "civil union" that is very broad and encompassing of the many types of unions, and then "marriage" as bestowed by various religious organizations according to their rules. So it's not for Gay people that we need to have civil unions. But rather to accomodate the different religious organization's rules.

Religious Organizations differ on the issue of Gay marriage. The Episcapal Church sanctifies it. The Catholic Church doesn't. To prevent discord, it is in the interest of the State to recognize the most widely encompassing definition for pair-bonding, while letting the Churches have the freedom to make additional requirements in order to qualify for their particular "marriage" sanctification.

[F'losrix]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Some kind of seperation of "marriage" from a "civil union" is eventually going to have to take place for all people. The "civil union" being the Governments recognition of the couple, and a "marriage" being the religious sanctification of the couple. Religious organizations are too different to work with any other model.

Take for example Catholic Anullments. Catholics divorces and remarriages are very strict, and require an anullment after a divorce in order to let a Catholic remarry in the Catholic church. From a Government standpoint, the state recognizes the "union" of any Catholics that remarry without an anullment. This puts government policy on marriage in direct contrast and potentially conflict with the Catholic Church.

Or consider Orthodox Jewish marriages, which require that both participants be recognized members of the Jewish faith. Same problem. The state recognizes any union between an Orthodox Jew and non-Jew, but of course the that wouldn't be in keeping with the tenets of that religion. It creates the potential for religious discontent.

So there is a need for a state "civil union" that is very broad and encompassing of the many types of unions, and then "marriage" as bestowed by various religious organizations according to their rules. So it's not for Gay people that we need to have civil unions. But rather to accomodate the different religious organization's rules.

Religious Organizations differ on the issue of Gay marriage. The Episcapal Church sanctifies it. The Catholic Church doesn't. To prevent discord, it is in the interest of the State to recognize the most widely encompassing definition for pair-bonding, while letting the Churches have the freedom to make additional requirements in order to qualify for their particular "marriage" sanctification.
Well said. I have to take issue with one representation you've made here, though. Last I knew the Episcopal Church had not taken an official position sanctifying gay unions as full-blown marriages. Other churches, such as the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian/Universalists have voiced support for equality of marriage recognition from the government, while leaving the actual determination to the discretion of congregations.

[Yukoner]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Some kind of seperation of "marriage" from a "civil union" is eventually going to have to take place for all people. The "civil union" being the Governments recognition of the couple, and a "marriage" being the religious sanctification of the couple. Religious organizations are too different to work with any other model.

Take for example Catholic Anullments. Catholics divorces and remarriages are very strict, and require an anullment after a divorce in order to let a Catholic remarry in the Catholic church. From a Government standpoint, the state recognizes the "union" of any Catholics that remarry without an anullment. This puts government policy on marriage in direct contrast and potentially conflict with the Catholic Church.

Or consider Orthodox Jewish marriages, which require that both participants be recognized members of the Jewish faith. Same problem. The state recognizes any union between an Orthodox Jew and non-Jew, but of course the that wouldn't be in keeping with the tenets of that religion. It creates the potential for religious discontent.

So there is a need for a state "civil union" that is very broad and encompassing of the many types of unions, and then "marriage" as bestowed by various religious organizations according to their rules. So it's not for Gay people that we need to have civil unions. But rather to accomodate the different religious organization's rules.

Religious Organizations differ on the issue of Gay marriage. The Episcapal Church sanctifies it. The Catholic Church doesn't. To prevent discord, it is in the interest of the State to recognize the most widely encompassing definition for pair-bonding, while letting the Churches have the freedom to make additional requirements in order to qualify for their particular "marriage" sanctification.

Exactly what I was thinking :clap:. The laws concerning married men and women differ with slight differences to just living with someone, gay people need at least a non-religious bonding contract to live fairly in a lawful society.