what is the big deal about civil unions?

[Jennifer.Bush]

N.H. governor says he'll OK civil unions
CONCORD, N.H. - Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign legislation establishing civil unions for gay couples in New Hampshire.

"I believe it is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination," Lynch told The Associated Press.

New Hampshire would become the fourth state to adopt civil unions, following Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey. Massachusetts established gay marriage.

Lynch had previously declined to take a public position on civil unions, though has supported expanding health benefits to same-sex partners of state workers. He came under fire from both sides for not weighing in — especially after a delay last week of the Senate vote on the House-passed bill.

The Senate votes next week, and Lynch said he is confident the legislation will pass. It would authorize civil unions beginning next year.

Fergus Cullen, the state Republican Party chairman, wasn't happy with the Democratic governor's decision.

"The Democrats are going too far, too fast, and Governor Lynch is going along with them," Cullen said. "These are not the actions of a moderate governor.

Democratic state Rep. Bette Lasky disagreed.

"It's never going too far when you give people their rights," she said, "and I honestly believe that the majority of people in this state want to do just that and do not want to discriminate."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/nh_civil_unions;_ylt=AlbzzsS4ohWh6ejFvW32Rl2MwfIE

@ people against civil unions

 

[maineman]

I agree completely. If it were up to me, the state would stay out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY issue legal licenses for civil unions...and the churches would marry whoever the hell they wanted to and their marriage would be a religious matter and not a legal one.

 

[Gunny]

I agree completely. If it were up to me, the state would stay out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY issue legal licenses for civil unions...and the churches would marry whoever the hell they wanted to and their marriage would be a religious matter and not a legal one.

That WOULD remove the basis for religious objection, IMO. Of course we know that isn't how it's going to be, but it IS my only objection to civil unions.

If my religion doesn't belong in the state, the state doesn't belong in my religion.

 

[Annie]

I agree completely. If it were up to me, the state would stay out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY issue legal licenses for civil unions...and the churches would marry whoever the hell they wanted to and their marriage would be a religious matter and not a legal one.

and I think many, liberals and conservatives have made that point way too many times.

I just did a search post here for: civil unions alone marriage

to see results:

http://usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=450352

 

[maineman]

forgive me. I was unaware there was a rule precluding mentioning our ideas on a thread topic if those ideas had been expressed previously. I'll remember it going forward.

 

[Annie]

forgive me. I was unaware there was a rule precluding mentioning our ideas on a thread topic if those ideas had been expressed previously. I'll remember it going forward.

You misunderstood the point of my post, rather I didn't clearly express what I meant. I was trying to get the point across that many agree with the idea of civil unions, including 'conservatives.'

 

[maineman]

I would agree that the idea seems almost self evident.... but I think that the conservatives who agree with that approach are not the religious ones. Methinks that the religious right is dead set against any form of legitimacy for homosexual relationships - religious OR civil.... and they are a powerful force in the republican party... and negative opinions about gays, unfortunately, are not confined to the right....

 

[Annie]

I would agree that the idea seems almost self evident.... but I think that the conservatives who agree with that approach are not the religious ones. Methinks that the religious right is dead set against any form of legitimacy for homosexual relationships - religious OR civil.... and they are a powerful force in the republican party... and negative opinions about gays, unfortunately, are not confined to the right....

I'm conservative and religious. While I'm not for a big brouhaha over civil unions, I can live with it. It's the same as for unmarried straits.

 

[Annie]

I would agree that the idea seems almost self evident.... but I think that the conservatives who agree with that approach are not the religious ones. Methinks that the religious right is dead set against any form of legitimacy for homosexual relationships - religious OR civil.... and they are a powerful force in the republican party... and negative opinions about gays, unfortunately, are not confined to the right....

Did you see how many of the 'religious right' concur, more or less? That's why I didn't 'pick and choose', just gave the results.

 

[maineman]

Did you see how many of the 'religious right' concur, more or less? That's why I didn't 'pick and choose', just gave the results.

I do not necessarily think that the folks who identify themselves as religious right HERE are indicative of those who identify themselves as such in society as a whole.

But I certainly could be all wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reinforcing bad behavior is always bad.

 

[Diuretic]

Reinforcing bad behavior is always bad.

Quite true, when training children or pets it's necessary to reinforce desired behaviour and extinguish undesired behaviour.

I just broke the rule though. I responded to a post that should have been ignored. Now I've reinforced your bad behaviour.

 

[Emmett]

I do not necessarily think that the folks who identify themselves as religious right HERE are indicative of those who identify themselves as such in society as a whole.

But I certainly could be all wrong.

Good point actually. I struggle with the issue terribly due to the fact that I am a Libertarian. To be true to my party and my basic belief in TOTAL liberty I must remain neutral, politically. Personally, it sickens me to think people of the same sex would want to engage in sexual behavior. I imagine I have that right just as sure as they have the right to do it.

I do have a problem with gay "marriage" for the following reason. I do not want to pay survivor benefits to the survivor of a gay marriage. Since the rate of death due to disease from AIDS is 45 times the rate of hetro's it places our finances in a little jepordy.

As for the everyday interaction with gay's, no problem, to each their own. I don't find myself curious of the sexual orientation of people I meet. I guess I just don't care much.

I can't understand why someone would be that way, that said, I'm glad I don't because if I did I would be capable of it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Civil unions, or any other means of sanctioning the union pf same gender couples in the eyes of the law, are not a "big deal". They are a tempest in a teapot fomented by supposedly socially conservative politicians in order to appeal to the red-meat, religious right wing-nut base...especially of the GOP.

There is no rational basis for prohibitions against same-gender couples marrying, or other mechanisms for having their unions recognized by the state. There is no demonstrable harm resulting from such unions. The basis for the opposition to such unions is rooted in, a very narrow, interpretation of religions doctrine. It is an attempt to give religious doctrine the force of law, and as such it has no place in state or federal law. The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits any law respecting the establishment of religion, and any law banning same gender unions is rooted in fundamentalist "Christian" dogma.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with the following statement. Basically, I think gays and straights should have the same rights, but marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil union are between men and men, women and women. Everybody gets the same rights, and everybody can quit whining (no offense).

I agree completely. If it were up to me, the state would stay out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY issue legal licenses for civil unions...and the churches would marry whoever the hell they wanted to and their marriage would be a religious matter and not a legal one.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I agree with the following statement. Basically, I think gays and straights should have the same rights, but marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil union are between men and men, women and women. Everybody gets the same rights, and everybody can quit whining (no offense).

I agree completely. If it were up to me, the state would stay out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY issue legal licenses for civil unions...and the churches would marry whoever the hell they wanted to and their marriage would be a religious matter and not a legal one.

In the eyes of the state, marriage serves couple purposes. One is contractual, the other is biological, as in determining the parentage and responsible parties in child rearing. It defines the rights and responsibilities a couple has towards each other in terms of property, finances, health care, child care and a slew of other issues. From that standpoint, there should be no practical barriers to the marriage of same-gender couples. The same applies to the raising of children and the responsibilities which it entails.

My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony, does that mean we are any less married than if we were married in a religious ceremony? No. In the eyes of the law, we are married and as far as the state is concerned, as long as we abide by the contractual obligations that the state imposes upon us we can remain married until death or dissolution.

If a relationship sanctioned by the state carries all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, then to call it anything else is no more than semantic hair-splitting and nit-picking. The religious right wing-nuts oppose same-gender unions on religious grounds, yet they can point to no instance in where they personally, or society at large, have been harmed by permitting same-gender couples the right to marry. Until such time as they can show demonstrable harm from the marriage, civil union or what have you, of same-gender couples they have little more than their moral indignation, insecurities and fears to stand upon. A poor scaffold upon which to stand at the best of times.

(<i>edited 4/25/07 @ 2236</i>)

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

Reinforcing bad behavior is always bad.

love is bad?

 

[Superlative]

When it is Gay yes.



Which is crazy-insane. not to mention ridiculous.

People shouldnt be concerned in the least with what someone else, somewhere else is doing.

And Protecting your children from the idea of gay civil union is a lame excuse.

You think that all of the sudden everyone in your neighbourhood is going to to become gay and get married?

Unless you live in a Gay community and couldnt stand the idea of Gays being legally wed? Change the channel, Move away.

Odds are the people who oppose this and their children are never going to be exposed to anything even remotely offensive to their ideals, its just the "idea" of it that has people upset, epecially evangelical's.

baloney.

Mind your own business.

 

[Gunny]

I would agree that the idea seems almost self evident.... but I think that the conservatives who agree with that approach are not the religious ones. Methinks that the religious right is dead set against any form of legitimacy for homosexual relationships - religious OR civil.... and they are a powerful force in the republican party... and negative opinions about gays, unfortunately, are not confined to the right....

I'm not sure it's so much the religious right as much as the homophobic haters. And a lot of people of the other side cannot make the distinction between the homophobes, haters, and/or religious right and the ones who think homosexuality is abnormal behavior and should not have legislation that caters solely to that abnormality forced upon the majority.

What I have seen from the religious right, left or wherever is an opposition to the use of the term "marriage, " less so , "civil union. The church itsefl ahs no business in civil law. Churches being allowed to perform marriage ceremonies is merely a convenience for the state, so they allow it. The state already performs non-religious marriages via the J.P.

Where the issue got derailed a couple of years ago is the extremists on the side of homosexual marriage demanded not only the civil union, but the term "marriage" as well, so even the ambivalent moderates said "no."

The issue is supposed to be about equality under the law. There are a couple fo ways to go about ensduring homosexuals are treated equally under the law without forcing their viewpoints on a religion that does not recognize homosexuality as anything but a sin of the flesh.

 

[Superlative]

New Hampshire Senate Approves Civil Unions

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- A bill authorizing civil unions for gays cleared its last hurdle Thursday in New Hampshire, the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one.

The Senate passed the bill 14-10, sending it to Gov. John Lynch, who announced last week he will sign it.

"To me this legislation is a credit to our state. We're making this move not because some court some place is telling us that we must," said Democratic Sen. Joe Foster of Nashua. "We do so today because it is the right thing to do."

The bill's success is an about-face from two years ago, when a study panel recommended giving no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay couples. That panel, staffed mostly by supporters of a ban on gay marriage, concluded that homosexuality is a choice and endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Democrats won control of the Legislature last fall for the first time in more than a century.

New Hampshire will join New Jersey, Connecticut and neighboring Vermont in offering civil unions beginning Jan. 1. Vermont and Massachusetts were the first states to offer civil unions and marriage, respectively, to same sex couples in 2000 and 2004. Both moves followed court decisions..........


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-NY-Civil-Unions.html?hp