HB 444 Civil Unions

[Jon]

I would think about the same...

We are talking about a tradition that dates back over 2000 years... and as our country was founded on Christian law, Marriage did not include same sex couples...

you also need to remember that back then women were just starting to be recognized has part of the human race and one man and one woman in Marriage was a huge step up for women. before that a woman was just property and was owned by anyone the the power to take her. It still that way in some other countries we all hear about...

Even in Hawaii women had no rights at all until 1819, and then they did not get much.
I was not able to google how marriage was done before Cook arrived, maybe you can point me to a good Hawaiian history site that includes day to day activity's and laws.





-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
HBAT

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg

I do wonder though, what the statistics are on the stability of relationships between heterosexual couples and same sex couples.

---

I don't think the current and popular definition of "Civil Union" has enough history to provide valid figures to draw any conclusion. There is also a BIG problem with marriage statistics as a whole relating to longevity. Since many heterosexual marriages come with religious and cultural baggage, (whereby same sex marriage often does not) how do you factor in those marriages that should have never occurred, should have been dissolved a long time ago, or is a business arrangement having nothing to do with any real marriage? For religious and cultural reasons couples could be actually divorced by actions but the marriage is still a legal formality.

It’s also difficult since same sex couples have been together for years without the benefit of any legal document whereby opposite sex couples have 2 or 3 different legal options that may all constitute a legal relationship under the law or in the eyes of many. In Texas you can have what amounts to a civil union. But the state does not talk amount that option or even advertises it's legal. Unless you know Texas law, everything they put in the public eye (for political/religious posturing) is to make people believe that marriage is performed and available in the "traditional" sense. Take a look at Hawaii's Reciprocal Beneficiary as kani-lehua pointed out. What part of that is essentially not the so called "Civil Union" everyone is talking about?

There is some evidence that same sex "joining" last longer than opposite sex “joining” due mainly to the removal of the religious and cultural aspects. Just spend some time sitting in divorce courts and listen to the unbelievable number of people who say they have not been living as husband or wife for X years, or they stayed together because of the children, or they didn't want the church to know, or.....

Finally, the truth is, males outnumber females (5 to 1) in opposition to same sex marriage. But the truth is, they really oppose same sex female marriages (NOT to be confused with female same sex sin) for purely sexual possibilities and female availability gross numbers. Grab one of those so called right wing, religious conservatives, and ask them to attend a female – female marriage and they will waive the bible and a Rush Windbag speech in your face. Now offer them the opportunity to watch female on female action, and all their moral and ethical bible thumping (along with wife and kids) will be left on the side of the road as they dash to participate.

Now, back to Hawaii, you also have to remember that its hard to track such information? You can get married in HI and get divorced in any other state or country for that matter. So called civil unions are currently limited to that state. So you can track civil unions but at a level you can't with marriages. Add to the problem, some states (even with same sex civil unions) do not track male/female, male/male or female/female information.

Yes, do away with the solomization of marriage and make it a license like anything else. What, how, where, and who is up top the individual license holders.

[Blakeyboy1]

Beautifully written Bob.

-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/

[kani-lehua]

wow, bob! well said!



"chaos reigns within.
reflect, repent and reboot.
order shall return."

microsoft error message with haiku poetry

[rbonplaza]

Ed and I were legally married last June. We have been married in our eyes for more than 21 years. I agree the government should not be involved in determining the validity of our relationship. However, the government does determine our tax status; it means our social security benefits will not be treated equally with an opposite-sex couple. Tomorrow, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding Proposition 8 which in a popular vote, rescinded same-sex marriage rights. The best guess right now is that the majority will be allowed to take away the rights of a minority on a simple 50% majority vote. The status of our marriage is less clear.

My point in this posting is that this is one more step up the staircase. Five years ago, we could not have imagined we could be legally married. It happened. It does mean more to us than just acknowledgment. After 20-plus years, we looked at each other a little differently! Nothing materially has changed to date- my employer provides full benefits under the domestic partner policy. California now requires that we file as married for state taxes. But the most important goal, changes in the federal tax and SS tax laws are a long way up the staircase. Just one or two steps up, a couple back, a few more up.... it will happen one day. Young people today will look back in a few years and wonder what were these people thinking! Think interracial marriage.... against the law once upon a time.

[Bob Orts]

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Constitution of the United States of America

Our laws require that government protects the rights of the minority even over the objection of the majority to prevent tyranny against the minority. Our founding laws demand that when a violation of law occurs where an individual is being denied the rights accorded them under the United States Constitution, we standup and fight to the death to protect that single individual.

No one has yet shown any evidence that granting equal rights to same sex couples to marry will deny any rights of opposite sex couples - We can not say the same in reverse.

[rbonplaza]

Thank you Bob for that. To me that is the crux of the debate. You and I, however are not able to change the reality of what is happening. The court, on a very narrow 4-3 margin supported that belief. This time, they are most likely to cave in to the pressure that the "majority" desire cannot be overturned, even at the expense of a small minority. It's a sad day, but this will not hold. Our children and grandchildren will see through this. Thus my staircase... one step up, one back, two up and suddenly we're at the top of the staircase wondering why it took so long to get here!

As Ed and I move on to the next chapter, the folks on PunaWeb have given us the hope we are moving into a community that will only judge us on our true qualities. Coming soon to Puna: Ed & Ralph, your new neighbors!

[Blakeyboy1]

Cheers to that rbonplaza! And we hope to not be too far behind you guys.

-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/

[Jon]

So, if you are a gay man the current law does not grant you the same right as a straight man? you can't marry a woman? Ummmm no "rights" are violated here. Equal protection of the "individual" is also respected currently.





-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
HBAT

[Bob Orts]

Jon, Jon, Jon, you do disappoint me. The issue is not about straight or gay, that's the narrow mindset that homophobics are stuck on. Marriage is "the union of individuals". By that basic definition, removing the forced "religious" aspect and keep it to the civil process of government, the limitation of marriage as only between opposite sexes denies the equal protection of the law. The law DOES NOT recognize sexual relations as a mandated requirement of marriage, that was repealed after spousal rape became an open and embarrassing issue. So two straight women who wish to join in a legal union as NON SEXUAL partners and agree to the legal requirement of a free consensual and contractual relationship is still barred based only on their sex, not their commitment to each other, and not based on their sexual orientation (hence the removal of the “gay” aspect.). Yet the word “GAY” is the only item mentioned over and over by those supporting opposite sex marriages only.
It's the homophobic nature of this issue that prevents people from making a reasonable, educated and sound judgment based on the founding laws of our country. Only by twisting this to a "gay" issue are they able to ignore the basic issue that requiring opposite sex unions only is nothing more than discrimination based on sex.