Connecticut Gay Group Ends Opposition To Civil Unions

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030105ctUnions.htm

Monday the group sent and email to its members, saying it had decided not to lobby for defeat of the civil unions bill but would continue to press for same-sex marriage.

"Clearly the civil union bill has momentum," Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, told the Associated Press on Monday.
"We are not going to be working to kill this bill, but we will keep talking to legislators about our hope that they will stand up and speak up for marriage."

Stanback said she still believes civil unions are inherently unequal, but she no longer views them as a political dead end.

[phantom power]

1. I'm confused...

Aren't "civil unions" the purview of government, and "marriage" the purview of religeon?

A "civil union" bill seems like exactly what *should* be dealt with via government. Not "marriage".

[LynzM]

2. Should, but isn't

I think that it should be that anyone who is joined in a legally binding union should have a 'civil union', and if you want to do it through the church, call it a 'marriage'. (Similar to many European ideas). However, as long as people here will only continue to recognize a 'marriage' as the standard, that is what people want, and will lobby for, to be considered equal. Not that I think the lobbying is wrong, rather, the fundamental idea in this country that gov't can dictate something religious. If that makes sense?

[phantom power]

4. It makes sense to me.

The opponents of gay marriage seem prone to using the argument that "marriage is a religeous sacrament, and gay marriage would profane it".

But that begs the question: "whose religeon?" And also the question: "If this is about religeon, then what business does legislation of *any* form have, dictating what anybody's religeon does or doesn't allow?"

But these ideas fall on deaf ears, since the drawing clear-headed distinctions between church and state is currently out of fashion.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

3. True

but many feel that anything less than marriage (as reinforced by the MA Supreme Court last FEB, I believe) is not equal.

Personally, I've gone back and forth on this. I do want it to be absolutely equal, but at the same time, I also want SOMEthing to happen, so it seems civil "unions" (as opposed to civil "marriage") is at least a foot in the door. Maybe someone would even challenge civil unions not being equal to marriage once unions were allowed?

Believe me, if civil unions were allowed, then I wouldn't reject it in an effort to hold out for calling them marriages (altho I also wouldn't choose it for myself -- marriage either).

Ideally (IMO), all contractual personal partnerships (including straight ones) would be termed "unions" and only when the superfluous blessing of a religion were sought would it be called a "marriage." That'll never fly tho; everyday people won't accept a re-application of the word "marriage."

[Boomer]

5. Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage

Marriage is still a legal contract between two individuals, one used as a basis for many rights and privileges that are NOT covered by civil unions.

From: http://gaylife.about.com/cs/gaymarriage/a/cdm.htm

"In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage."