Legalize civil unions

Legalize civil unions

There are 1115 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Apr 26, 2009, titled Legalize civil unions. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The idea of letting gays and lesbians marry hasn't lost its power to polarize. Some 350 people rallied this month at the Iowa statehouse in Des Moines to protest the state Supreme Court's decision mandating recognition of gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 56
Next Last
NoConservativePr opaganda

Chicago, IL

#1 Apr 26, 2009
What the hate-filled bile pour down from the right.

So sad to watch such ignorance on display.
brett

Skokie, IL

#2 Apr 26, 2009
Can someone tell me why the goverment gives extra benefits to married couples?
WHy are they in the marriage business anyways?
drdanfee

Sunnyvale, CA

#4 Apr 26, 2009
Civil unions as equivalent in privileges, status, resources, obligations sounds great at first sound bite. And yes, it is a far step forward compared to the old days when queer folks were rigidly supposed to be hangdog in demeanor, silent, invisible. If the experience of Connecticutt is any indication, though, civil unions are not the equality step foward they read to be, theoretically. After enacting civil unions, Connecticutt found in a two year follow up that almost nothing in the new equal package of status and options that same sex couples was supposed to automatically have, was working well or simply in the real world. Further, the additional legal and financial onus was square upon the shoulders of any couple who happened to be treated or barred from something, even though the new civil union law said otherwise. If that couple did not stop their lives, get a lawyer, and sue in court or at least seriously threaten to sue in court to enforce the civil union status; they did not in simple, effective terms actually legally possess or enjoy that status. Hence, Connecticutt eventually shifted to full, simple civil marriage equality. Marriage and religion is quite another matter, since no one group of religious believers has to recognize the marriage of any other group of religious or secular citizens as married, except insofar as an equally written body of law and case decisions applies to all across the religious, cultural, or other differences. If the most extreme conservatives are so morally right, then civil law concerning marriage should never had bothered to exist; it is strictly some one group's special religious concept, carried out strictly among its own home group of religious believers. On the other hand, if something called civil marriage is truly established by secular law, regardless of religious or other citizen differences, and if that civil law applies to all, then simple civil marriage equality is the only common sense logical outcome. Problem is, religious married folks want the status, privileges and so forth of marriage to be exclusively available to them as a special category of higher creatures, straight married religious citizens, above and apart from everybody else - who is simply less, inferior. If this were about nearly any other difference - buddhists claiming an exclusive right to marriage that catholics or jews or protestants or atheists simply did not have the legal or moral right to access, we would all rightly be up in arms in protest. Target the ethically committed queer couples (and their children, lets not forget) and you can get away with trash talking almost any nasty allegation against them that you might want to say outright or suggest in innuendo; and then you get away with calling them things like dangerous, unnatural, and even a threat to your children or your eternal salvation. We are hardly over this meanness, not by a long, long shot.
duh

Lombard, IL

#5 Apr 26, 2009
NoConservativePropaganda wrote:
What the hate-filled bile pour down from the right.
So sad to watch such ignorance on display.
Huh? Did I miss something? Where's the hate?

It seems to me you're the bomb thrower here.
Michelle

Frankford, DE

#6 Apr 26, 2009
Civil Unions are the equivalent of the separate but equal doctrine. A new distinction based on
sexual orientation would be equally suspect as it was in Iowa and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This is unacceptable.
Jeremy

Rochester, NY

#8 Apr 26, 2009
brett wrote:
Can someone tell me why the goverment gives extra benefits to married couples?
WHy are they in the marriage business anyways?
Marriage has a stabilizing influence on both individuals (especially males) and society as a whole.

People who are married, especially with children, are statistically more likely to hold steady jobs, make more money, commit fewer crimes, and consume less government resources.

We subsidize highways because we value being able to move cross-country in a short amount of time. Likewise, we subsidize marriage because marriage promotes the values that most of us share.
duh

Lombard, IL

#9 Apr 26, 2009
"Unnoticed in the uproar is that most Americans favor extending the benefits and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples -- just as long as it goes by a different name. Call it marriage, and most people bridle. Call it a civil union, and some 55 percent of citizens are in favor."

Exactly. So would someone please explain to me why gays insist on calling this marriage? Isn't it the equal legal rights that are important here? None of my gay friends can explain why the name of "marriage" is so important. What difference does the name make?

Please explain.
corntrader19

Dallas, TX

#10 Apr 26, 2009
NakedGardenBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell are you ranting about?
I hate it when the first post is from a breadstick.
I would also like to know what this poster is ranting about.
Mark In Chicago

Berwyn, IL

#11 Apr 26, 2009
A civil-union is telling me I have a place on the bus. Unfortunately, it's in the back.
Not really

Brewster, NY

#12 Apr 26, 2009
duh wrote:
"Unnoticed in the uproar is that most Americans favor extending the benefits and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples -- just as long as it goes by a different name. Call it marriage, and most people bridle. Call it a civil union, and some 55 percent of citizens are in favor."
Exactly. So would someone please explain to me why gays insist on calling this marriage? Isn't it the equal legal rights that are important here? None of my gay friends can explain why the name of "marriage" is so important. What difference does the name make?
Please explain.
Why does it even need to be called something different? Straight couples married in non-religious ceremonies still are "married", so why should it be different for gay couples married outside of a church. It all boils down to homophobia.
jeff

United States

#13 Apr 26, 2009
If you consider the separation of Church and State it is logical for Federal/State government to recognize civil unions thus reserving marriages to be performed by church officials as each denomination decides.
duh

Lombard, IL

#14 Apr 26, 2009
drdanfee, I didn't see your post before I posted. Thanks for the comments.

It seems part of the problem is getting the law written correctly, so gays do not need a lawyer to re-fight for their legal rights.

I think that militant, in-your-face reaction like that following defeat in California is not helpful. Maybe this needs to be a multi-step process, i.e., half a loaf is better than none for now. Women and blacks are still discriminated against in spite of decades of laws against discrimination. Attitudes are hard to change.
duh

Lombard, IL

#17 Apr 26, 2009
Not really wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it even need to be called something different? Straight couples married in non-religious ceremonies still are "married", so why should it be different for gay couples married outside of a church. It all boils down to homophobia.
"Marriage" has a strong religious connection in addition to being a legally binding contract, whereas "civil union" is just the legally binding part. The strongest opposition is from the religious community, so why not go for the rights and forgetwhat it's called?

Some say why not call it marriage - it's just a name. I say why not call it civil union - it's just a name. Why make it an all-or-nothing stand? It will come eventually.(I know. Easy to say, not so easy to live it.)
Not really

Brewster, NY

#18 Apr 26, 2009
E OConnor wrote:
It may be a matter of semantics but in a marriage you can combine the DNA of the male and female partner and create a child. With same sex couples, no matter how hard you try, you cannot create a child by combining the DNA of both partners.
Fortunately I have accepted Christ into my life and accepted His sacrifice for my sins. Regardless as to whether it is popular or not Homosexuality is a sin. The good news is that God will forgive any man or woman if they will change their ways, ask forgiveness, admit guilt and be baptized into Christ. They need not suffer permanent separation from God here on earth or after death.
Exactly, and that's why elderly couples and infertile couples aren't allowed to marry. Right?
mset

Decatur, IL

#19 Apr 26, 2009
"If you consider the separation of Church and State it is logical for Federal/State government to recognize civil unions thus reserving marriages to be performed by church officials as each denomination decides."

EXACTLY. As the editorial notes, the objections to equality in civil marriage are based on individuals' religious beliefs. Even among the religious communities, objections are by no means universal. Legislatures' dancing around the issue with "civil unions" is a defacto endorsement of a particular religious view.
Dennis

Kent, WA

#20 Apr 26, 2009
Thank you, Trib editorial board, for this editorial. We are moving home to Chicago in a few weeks and have been worried that we are leaving the few protections we have in WA's domestic partnership. It would be nice to have some legal protections for our relationship when we get back to IL.

Thank you to the Trib. editorial staff. I hope that Springfield gets the message.
RickChicago

Crown Point, IN

#21 Apr 26, 2009
E OConnor wrote:
It may be a matter of semantics but in a marriage you can combine the DNA of the male and female partner and create a child. With same sex couples, no matter how hard you try, you cannot create a child by combining the DNA of both partners.
Fortunately I have accepted Christ into my life and accepted His sacrifice for my sins. Regardless as to whether it is popular or not Homosexuality is a sin. The good news is that God will forgive any man or woman if they will change their ways, ask forgiveness, admit guilt and be baptized into Christ. They need not suffer permanent separation from God here on earth or after death.
If your definition of marriage is the ability to combine DNA, then should be aware that science is working on the ability to take of any persons DNA and combine it with the other half of another person.

Funny you are quoting the Bible and mentioning DNA. People who follow the Bible are so normally anti-science... Evolution, hello? Galilieo's life was threatened byt he church because he said the earth spins around the sun and not the other way around, hello? Noah put 2 of each animal on the Ark, that;s how animals were saved from the flood?....hello

Anyway, gaynees exists in many many many animal species, so if it exists in nature, it must be natural, right?

“I love my wife. :)”

Since: Mar 08

Seattle, WA

#22 Apr 26, 2009
duh wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage" has a strong religious connection in addition to being a legally binding contract, whereas "civil union" is just the legally binding part. The strongest opposition is from the religious community, so why not go for the rights and forgetwhat it's called?
Some say why not call it marriage - it's just a name. I say why not call it civil union - it's just a name. Why make it an all-or-nothing stand? It will come eventually.(I know. Easy to say, not so easy to live it.)
OK then...let's make it equal THIS way: under the law ALL are called CIVIL UNIONS (that would mean all currently married couples' marriages would be relabeled "Civil Unions") and let everyone who wants to "Marry" have that a matter of their own religious practices. Think all the straight couples out there would go for it? I would be fine with that, personally. Behind it 100%.

But what you want (civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals) has a couple of problems. One is that separate is inherently unequal in the eyes of the law. Another is the implication of superiority of one over the other. It is simply UNEQUAL to have separate names even if technically they carry all the same rights and responsibilities.
Jose

Chicago, IL

#24 Apr 26, 2009
Can we have a discussion on civil unions without bringing up God or the bible? Other than the religious angle, I don't understand why anyone would be against gay civil unions. I know religion plays a big part, but come on people, it's 2009!

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#26 Apr 26, 2009
Separate but equal never is. You would think that we've learned that from history already, but apparently the editorial staff at this pathetic rag has forgotten that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 56
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min nanoanomaly 1,583,532
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 15 min RACE 11,183
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 17 min RACE 105,238
Trump Speaks Differently to Different Crowds ju... 1 hr Go Away 1
m0n$t3r$ und3r my b3d la. 1 hr EON 3
What's the real story about Charlottsville? 1 hr Dems Racist Narci... 27
TRUTH will be revealed, someday, maybe. 1 hr Malignant Narciss... 44

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages