Civil Unions Bill

[AlohaSteven]

Marriage should be the purview of religions, not governments. If people want a religious blessing for their loving relationship, go for it. But if they want legal benefits, they'd need to do the civil union too. This removes all the polygamy, bestiality, Adam and Steve, and other red herrings from the discussion.

I'd agree the language involved is part of the problem, but its the other way around: if people want a ritual declaration in front of a faith community, go for holy matrimony. Marriage, though, is significantly different because it administered by the state and has legal bearing for all citizens regardless of their religious views or lack thereof.

Holy matrimony (or, the holy sacrement of matrimony) is a religious ritual performed in churches and has no legal weight whatsoever as a contract registered with the state. Holy matrimony is simply a ritualized declaration of commitment before a faith community. The faith community can exclude whomever they want for whatever reason, as Mormons did with African Americans until 1978. By contrast, marriage is and has for many centuries if not millennia been a legal contract registered with the state which obligates the partners to mutual responsibility for debts and ownership of property, custody of children, etc. Part of the reason there has been such a flap about "gay marriage" (which is really just "law-abiding, tax-paying, adult citizen marriage") is either ignorance or deliberate distortion conflating marriage with holy matrimony. Right here in Hawaii and elsewhere the Mormon church has several times now used an outright lie (if gays can marry then churches will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples) exploiting this exact confusion in order to influence elections. This assertion is not true--as they well know--because marriages are a function of the courthouse, not the church; no church could ever be forced to perform ceremonies of holy matrimony counter to their beliefs. Besides, who would want to? If I want a fluffy ceremony in a church then I'd rather spend money on the services and facilities of folks who like me instead of giving money to folks who hate me.

I do not particularly care whether or not this church or that church wants to exclude my partner and I from having a legally meaningless ceremony on their tax-free property. I do care about having equal rights. Equal rights, to me, means just that: equality. Nothing more and nothing less. "Civil unions" are not the same as marriage, even if the civil union bill language is configured such that only thing different between the one and the other is the name itself; it is still not the same, so is not equal treatment under the law. Why should John and Jane be able to opt for either a marriage certificate or a certificate of civil union, but Adam and Steve are legally excluded from a marriage certificate and may only receive a certificate of civil union (and not even that, as long as the Lingles of Hawaii continue to hold sway)?

Let me put it another way: if a marriage certificate and a civil union certificate are exactly the same (equal) and I should not mind having the one and being excluded from the other, then why have exclusionary laws been struck down excluding African Americans from drinking at government water fountains marked "Whites Only"? There is a separate but equal water fountain provided and labeled for Blacks located just a few feet away, identical to the water fountain for Whites. Why should African Americans care if they are not allowed to drink from the same water fountain paid for equally with their tax money as the one Whites are drinking from? Well, if it is not the same exact treatment under the law--the same water fountain--then it is not actually equal treatment, now is it? So, tell me why I should be happy with a "civil union" instead of a marriage, just like anyone else who pays his or her taxes?

By the way, with regard to the (I'd say) valid question...

Most people seem to beleive in either a creator or that humans evolved from nothing into present form. Because homosexuals can't produce offspring (naturaly) they will eventually remove themselves from the gene pool and as in the case of say an old ape line, extinction. Do not the laws of nature dictate that only the strong survive to evolve and reproduce themselves?

...imho this is quite Hawaii-relevant given it is part of the current local issue, directly concerns and affects local folks, and appears to have been asked as a legitimate inquiry (versus troll activity). Nonetheless I appreciate that this is actually a huge bundle of collapsed distinctions and entire texts have been written on each, most of which is far beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll try to reply as briefly as possible to each component.

Most people seem to believe in either a creator or that humans evolved from nothing into present form. -These beliefs (Creator and evolution) are not mutually exclusive, though evolution is generally taken to be a change over time from one preceding form to another (creation, by contrast, is something arising from nothing).

Because homosexuals can't produce offspring (naturaly) -Actually, many homosexuals can and do produce biological offspring the old fashioned way (no turkey baster or test tube needed). Affection and sexual attraction shared with another male or another female does not preclude reproduction. The vast majority of gay men and lesbian women in more repressive regions overseas--millions of people--are actually married, with children.

they will eventually remove themselves from the gene pool and as in the case of say an old ape line, extinction. -Even if some appreciable percentage of gay and lesbian people were so completely unable to function except with a member of their own sex, if there is evolutionary value to the trait (as there clearly is) then it would still persist in the population, as via being passed on by heterosexual brothers and sisters and only expressing in certain offspring.

Do not the laws of nature dictate that only the strong survive to evolve and reproduce themselves? -Not really, not as "strong" is usually meant. It is way more subtle and variable than this, and has a great deal more to do with adaptability to changing conditions, goodness of fit, and not only initially reproducing but then nurturing and protecting offspring to the point they can successfully reproduce as well. Darwin's moths are a good example...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...skies.html
...but humans are a way more interesting case than moths because our behavior is so complex. In all sorts of ways both simple (e.g., gay uncles and lesbian aunts adopt and care for their dead brothers' and sisters' orphaned kids) and complex (divergent thinking leading to creative solutions which benefit the group) gay and lesbian humans benefit the population as a whole -but that gets into yet another topic.



)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

All creative work is derivative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(