Civil Unions The Right Way

By BigGator5 Posted in Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When it comes to gay marriage, most conservatives don't like the idea. This is understandable (because they think marriage is a religious institution and I frankly agree with them), except when they come up with the solution of Civil Unions for gay couples only. Sure, separate but equal will work...

NOT! Segregation, whether it's racial or sexual, is never justify. My solution, while it may not be simple, will put people on equal footing no matter their sexual orientation and everyone will be happy.

I am personally against marriage, for both gay and straight couples, as a legal term. Instead we should have the legal union between two human adults of age 18 or older, called either Civil Unions or Unions. Then we protect your local religious church (mosque or temple) to marry or not marry, whoever they want without fear of lawsuits. We have to protect religious institutions, if we allow them to defind marriage.

While this is a legal "contract" between two people, there can be legal consequences for dissolving the Civil Union.

I think this will also help marriage in America. Just think about what is going on in this country. People get married and divorce at a drop at a hat. Currently, the government can give two pennies if you stay married or not. If you have to get a purely religious marriage, you will have to get a purely religious divorce and I know religious leaders care that you stayed married. A religious leader would act as a consular in order to keep the marriage together.

Religious institutions have to recognized Civil Unions if they run a hospital, a school, or other such publicly funded services. I mean, that only sounds fair?

My mother always said there was a right way and wrong way of doing things. Well, let's do Civil Unions the right way.

If you like to know more about BigGator5, please visit his on-line journal at BigGator5.net and drop him a line.

Are civil unions just marriage with a different name?

"Currently, the government can give two pennies if you stay married or not."

Which is exactly how we got where we are.

Your suggestion redefines marriage whether that is your intent or not.

Marriage and stable families benefit the state. So it's no surprise that good governmental leaders see this and promote marriage, and have for centuries.

Homosexual "civil unions" offer no benefit to the state. The argument here is made on the basis of "rights".

Your argument makes perfect sense in the case of "homosexual marriage" i.e. make it a religious argument only. It makes no sense in the case of Marriage since marriage provides a stable relationship for children and adults.

And there is no moral problem associated with Marriage of a man and woman.

"Marriage and stable families benefit the state."

Then the government would make divorce virtually impossible, which they haven't. They would also have publicly funded marriage consulars, which they don't. They don't defend straight marriage, so why should they have the moral authority to defind what marriage is for everyone else?

While I agree with you that stable families are important, currently lawyers are now more in the business of marriage than anyone else. Let's untangle marriage from a legal stand-point and people wouldn't feel rushed into getting married or divorced. With my suggestion people can still be married, it just won't be have any legal bearing.

BigGator5.net

What kind of consequences are you suggesting? Forcing couples who no longer are in love with each other to stay together would seem to be worse than a divorce. You'd find more adultery and unhappy households. While it might slow down a few marriages from happening, I don't think it will change much. People rarely look at the consequences of divorce when they are "madly in love". Just ask Paul McCartney.

Although I'm an atheist, I could understand the argument that marriage was partially a religious institution and "homosexual marriage" was a theoretical impossibility. However, I do think gays deserve access to the legal benefits of marriage. Cutting out marriage and allowing civil unions seems like it'd make everyone happy; the "marriage is a religious institution and will be damaged" group and the "homosexuals deserve equal rights" group.

I tell my dear friends who wish for gay marriage that the road to full acceptance takes a detour through "Separate But Equal".

They are deeply, deeply, deeply offended by this observation.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

in terms of identity, which can be anything from Chardonnay Democrats to goths to Trekkies and to all other points betwixt and between.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service