03-02-2009, 09:38 AM
quote: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.
Originally posted by Greg
I do wonder though, what the statistics are on the stability of relationships between heterosexual couples and same sex couples.
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.