In the Denver Post, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family argues that civil unions are proving to be a slippery slope to redefining marriage:
... Proponents argue that civil unions are no threat to the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage. All one has to do is look to the west to see that's not the case. In 2010, a federal judge ruled that California's attempt to grant civil union-like benefits to same-sex couples created a "second-class citizenship" — and he ordered same-sex marriage as the way to fix the "problem" despite California's state marriage amendment which is virtually identical to Colorado's. That's the same "problem" civil unions would create in Colorado, taking the definition of marriage out of the hands of the people and inviting a federal court challenge like California's.
Every time a state has passed civil unions, demands to the legislature or the courts from gay activists to legalize same-sex marriage have followed — every time. To say civil unions are not about marriage is to disregard these facts.
Colorado voters already rejected a ballot referendum virtually identical to the civil union bill when they voted down Referendum I in 2006. Alongside Ref I on the ballot that year was Amendment 43, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. Voters said yes to marriage and no to domestic partnerships because it represented a counterfeit to marriage, just like the pending civil union bill.
17 Comments
If homosexuals who decide to form civil unions believe they are 2nd-class citizens, then they should have decided to get married to an opposite sex partner.
Since male-female couples are the only way that children can be created, the only way that our species can be propagated, then male female couples deserve special attention over all other combinations of people/things. Thus, marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Yes, my homosexual friends, male-female couples contribute special benefits to society that homosexual couples cannot. As such we encourage even sterile and elderly couples to get married to serve as examples for other male-female couples.
Most of us on the pro-marriage side of the debate are quite reasonable and willing to compromise. Historically, this has been to our detriment. Civil unions are a case in point. Whenever we've tried to do the right thing we've been stabbed in the back. Some unscrupulous members of the opposition have used our willingness to compromise as a legal wedge to redefine marriage.
I used to support civil unions, but my back really hurts from all the stab wounds.
A clear three-layered hierarchy (Opposite-sex married over opposite-sex unmarried over same-sex) of domestic unions would make sense by underlining the relative values that it is extremely harmful to characterize as "equal".
So long as it is claimed that treating decisions people make as of unequal value is treating the people as of unequal value we will be at an impasse.
Barb:
Your observation, in a nutshell, expresses why the opposition often wins even if tiny, utterly opposed buy the majority, and unable to prevail in any fair fight.
The Bolsheviks never needed popular support to win.
They were simply more committed.
Our leadership in the marriage movement had better get as committed as the marriage corruption Bolsheviks are.
Quickly.
This article from the newspaper has it right. We should not support civil unions because our willingness to be reasonalble has always resulted in the oppostion using this as a stepping stone to get phony marriage mandatted.
(1) The state of CT is a perfect example and should show us what really happens. The CT legislature granted civil unions. The conservatives demanded and got language in the bill clearly defining marriage is between one man and one woman. Case closed right? Wrong.
No sooner than had the ink dried on the bill the sodomites were crybabying their way down to the CT Supreme Court. And by golly what happened. They conned the unelected activist judges into granting that the civil unions were unconstitutional and they imposed phony marriage on the state of CT.
(2) Maine was another state where the homosexuals proved they are nothing but commited liars. They conned the public into a human rights bill that was in effect civil unions. In 2005 they promised it would have no affect on marriage. We all saw what happened in Maine.
As Barb says, the history of civil unions speaks for itself.
Except that second class citizenship is not reasonable. Hence the move toward marriage equality.
The Denver Post was not entirelly fair to this writer as this article was an online one only and not in the printed version.
Four different unions:
The civil-union (civil-union) The word 'civil' is not strong enough to stand alone in way of explanation. And it is much to general to do honor and dignity to anyone who wants to affirm a relationship of life long human commitment. (It is even insulting to suggest that it should.)
The opposite sex union (marriage) The word 'marriage' is strong enough to stand alone in way of explanation.
The same sex-union (as yet unnamed) There is no interest shown that this union wants to be named; though it should be named, if only to discuss it. The word would have to be unique, and sound acceptable to those concerned, and be strong enough to stand alone for it to be equal in respectability.
The sex -irrelevant-union (as yet unnamed nor clearly defined) It is this union that is at this time taking (literally stealing away) the already accounted for word 'marriage'. And than putting a new definition to it. They are not redefining marriage, they are making a completely new thing and using the word marriage to name it.
The same-sex union is fighting to be included in this union. The opposite-sex union is not given a choice. All other combinations will also fall under the name given to this union, transgender, transsexual etc.
@Tin
No one is being treated as a second class citizen. If anything, same-sex couples shouldn't need government recognition of their unions. One would think that a union that is out of reach from the government would be ideal since you would pay less in taxes. All the benefits you could hope for would be written up in a private contract.
My point is this push for same-sex marriage isn't and never will be about "equal rights".
Zack -Not true. I lived abroad for work for many years. A good American gay friend of mine is still living abroad but would like to return to the US to be closer to his parents as they age. My friend has had a same sex partner for close to 15 years now who is not a US citizen. Should my friend return to the US, he could not legally bring his partner with him to live here. If my friend were heterosexual, this would not be a problem. This is blatant discrimination against those born gay. I have other friends in a similar predicament that cannot be overcome with a "private contract".
Civil unions are a big mistake.
NOM should push hard for Civil Unions. Civil Unions between anyone. Mom and Son....Brother and Brother...Sister and Sister....Hetero Roommates. No requirement to prove love, or kiss the partner. This would serve 2 purposes:
1) Show the fight over the word Marriage is not about Benefits or Rights. Its about a Kulture Kampf to change social norms and marginalize religious institutions.
2) Emphasize the Procreative state interest in Marriage - not a state sanctification of Love.
I doubt CU's for all would ever get approved by a legislature or electorate. The Gay lobby would turn their nose up. Corporate America would not like the benefit burden. John Q Public would still prefer Marriage - not extend a mutual aid relationship.
Nah forget it Roger. We have been burned before in supporting civil unions. Just read the above posts from John Noe and Barb.
But wait! NOM just a few days ago lauded the comments of the gay TeaParty member in Maryland who spoke out against SSM and said civil unions should be the goal. Are you not with him? If not, someone should let him know that NOM is just using him for the SSM fight in Maryland but otherwise doesn't respect his views.
So wait, why then is NOM backing Civil Unions in New Hampshire?
@The.Truth In liberal states like CA, NH and IL
civil unions are the lesser of 2 evils but NOM is opposing civil unions in Minnesota and North Carolina later this year (the amendments ban both). Likewise there are debates internationally in Cuba, Venezuela and Queensland, Australia, over civil unions and in all three, pro-family activists seem to be winning. I personally have no issue with hospital visitation rights for gays but marriage is not just a word, it is an institution and should be protected and benefits of marriage should go to MARRIED couples, not cohabitating, not same-sex, not unmarried, not brothers and sisters living together etc.
Wat reason, if any, can be offered to justify a legal relationship status based on ... what?... same sex sexual behavior, same sex sexual romance, and so forth?
The basic problem is tha there is no good reason on offer that would not also be applicable to nonsexualized types of relationships.
We already have long-existing and accesible provisions for reciprocal beneficiaries. Sponsorship is available for immigration purposes regardless of supposed sexualized features of a relationship. Why should the gay identity group be treated superior to the rest of nonmarriage?
That is an authentic question.
CU and DP have been used as trojan horses and enough is enough. Preferential treatment of gay idenity is not justified ... not because I or any other marriage defender says so but because the hockers of SSM have not supplied authentic justifications. Just a lot of false equivalencies by way of attacking the core meaning of marriage either through all-but-marriage-in-name civil union status or full-on merger of SSM with marriage.
If there is a decent justification for treating the gay identity group with preferential status, why don't the activists make THAT case already?