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.

KPOM

United States

#52 Apr 26, 2009
jeff wrote:
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.
Basically, all unions, heterosexual or same-sex, should be considered "civil unions" at the legal level (where it is a form of contract law). Religious organizations and individuals can decide for themselves whether to consider such unions to be "marriages."

The larger issue, though, is the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these state-level acts, whether called marriage or civil union, will result in equal benefits until that law is repealed.
Howie

Willowbrook, IL

#53 Apr 26, 2009
Considering the incredibly high divorce rate in this nation, I propose that heterosexual marriage be banned.
joe lists

Minneapolis, MN

#57 Apr 26, 2009
Straight religious people often ask where the line will be drawn if gays are allowed to marry. They often ask "What will happen next?" Will people be allowed to marry their animals? Will close relatives be allowed to marry? I too ask "What will happen next?" but from a different perspective. What will happen next if we allow people's religious rights to trump the civil rights of others? Where will the line be drawn if religious people are allowed to force their beliefa on everyone else? The constitution allows one the freedom to express their religion but there are limits. Evidently religious people think themselves exempt from any limits yet they believe gay people should have limited civil rights. Whatever their creed sais should be copied into civil law whether it has any merit or not. What hypocrits religious people are!

Since: Nov 07

Elgin, IL

#58 Apr 26, 2009
ACLU-Tom wrote:
My husband and I were married, note the word, married, in our church before God, our family and friends. Why should my marriage be treated any less equally than a marriage performed in a Catholic church, a Jewish temple or a mosque? Why should I be treated like a second-class citizen because of the bigotry of some (not all) in the "religious community?"
<quoted text>
Can you explain to me why it is so important for you to force your beliefs on other people? Same sex unions have NEVER been recognized. You knew that going in. The majority of people are AGAINST same sex marriage.

Please give me one good reason why traditional marriage should be redefined to appease a minority.

And skip the equal protection crap. The law is already equal. Heterosexuals can't have same sex marriages, either. The law is completely equal.
bikram betal

Chicago, IL

#59 Apr 26, 2009
Howie wrote:
Considering the incredibly high divorce rate in this nation, I propose that heterosexual marriage be banned.
I second that
Rose

Pacific Palisades, CA

#60 Apr 26, 2009
VivianC wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain to me why it is so important for you to force your beliefs on other people? Same sex unions have NEVER been recognized. You knew that going in. The majority of people are AGAINST same sex marriage.
Please give me one good reason why traditional marriage should be redefined to appease a minority.
And skip the equal protection crap. The law is already equal. Heterosexuals can't have same sex marriages, either. The law is completely equal.
No it's not. I can't marry a woman, a man can.

The definition of traditional marriage will not be changed and nothing will be forced on anybody. This article is a JOKE.

"Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry"

"BOSTONóJustices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15. "

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
JB POTTS

Glen Ellyn, IL

#61 Apr 26, 2009
I've noticed from the posts a common trend - the idea that "gay people" are not " religious people", like the 2 are distinct opposites. Huh, wrong distinction folks- you got bigots and hotheads on both sides, as in Perez Hilton didn't do the gay movement any favors, nor did Jerry Falwell and crew on the other side.

Myself, I'm still listening to both sides. Is it a moral issue in rejecting gay marriage, or immoral to deny a loving union?
Jose

Chicago, IL

#62 Apr 26, 2009
VivianC wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain to me why it is so important for you to force your beliefs on other people? Same sex unions have NEVER been recognized. You knew that going in. The majority of people are AGAINST same sex marriage.
Please give me one good reason why traditional marriage should be redefined to appease a minority.
And skip the equal protection crap. The law is already equal. Heterosexuals can't have same sex marriages, either. The law is completely equal.
I don't think gay couples are enforcing their beliefs on married couples. I don't understand how a gay couple getting married forces "their" beliefs on you? How can you say that the law is completely equal? You say that heterosexuals can't have a same sex marriage? Why would they? Gay couples want the same rights that married couples have.

Since: Nov 07

Elgin, IL

#63 Apr 26, 2009
Jose wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think gay couples are enforcing their beliefs on married couples. I don't understand how a gay couple getting married forces "their" beliefs on you? How can you say that the law is completely equal? You say that heterosexuals can't have a same sex marriage? Why would they? Gay couples want the same rights that married couples have.
Civil unions grant all the same rights except the name marriage. But still they want to take the name. Why?

Redefining the word marriage is forcing everybody to accept the new definition.

Since: Nov 07

Elgin, IL

#64 Apr 26, 2009
Rose wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. I can't marry a woman, a man can.
You see, two people of the opposite sex can agree to marry. That is the law for everyone, not just gays or straights. The fact that you don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex does not make the law unequal.

Let's try an example: most people feel that the 45 miles per hour speed limit on Milwaukee avenue is fine. I think it should be 55 miles per hour. I don't want to drive 45 and don't care about who does. Does that mean the law is unequal? Nope. It just means I don't like it.

I can't have a same-sex marriage either and I'm not homosexual. Don't ask why I would want to, just understand that the law offers the same option of marriage to everyone. You not wanting that option does not make it unfair.
Rose

Pacific Palisades, CA

#65 Apr 26, 2009
VivianC wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil unions grant all the same rights except the name marriage. But still they want to take the name. Why?
Redefining the word marriage is forcing everybody to accept the new definition.
Are you a Christian?
Rose

Pacific Palisades, CA

#66 Apr 26, 2009
VivianC wrote:
<quoted text>
You see, two people of the opposite sex can agree to marry. That is the law for everyone, not just gays or straights. The fact that you don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex does not make the law unequal.
Can I marry a woman? Yes or no.
VivianC wrote:
Let's try an example: most people feel that the 45 miles per hour speed limit on Milwaukee avenue is fine. I think it should be 55 miles per hour. I don't want to drive 45 and don't care about who does. Does that mean the law is unequal? Nope. It just means I don't like it.
It would be unequal if white people were allowed to drive 55, but others couldn't.
VivianC wrote:
I can't have a same-sex marriage either and I'm not homosexual. Don't ask why I would want to, just understand that the law offers the same option of marriage to everyone. You not wanting that option does not make it unfair.
I can't marry a woman because I'm a woman. A man can because he's a man. That's not equal.
cjs

Dolton, IL

#67 Apr 26, 2009
No offense, but I do not share your religion, and Buddhists consider gay unions just as holy and sacred as straight ones. So you are a bigot against Buddhists, too, a religion that is much older, more peaceful, more loving, less sexist, and less hypocritical than yours. I am glad I found my way out of the darkness that is Christianity. I am a better person for it. And older couples, infertile couples, or people that doen't want children don't "join DNA" either...and last time I checked, that's called childbirth, procreation, getting knocked up, forgetting to use birth control, whichever you choose, but its not called marriage.

Since: Apr 08

Warrenville, IL

#68 Apr 26, 2009
With this limp editorial, the Trib's editorial board tries to appear to take a stand without actually doing so.

A civil union would grant exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a marriage - but would not be called a marriage? That's a solution? You just check a box - a) Marriage, or b) Civil Union - but otherwise it's identical? How does anyone make that argument with a straight face?

The fact that you want to give them separate names shows you know they are not equal.

Here's an idea - let's give all Protestants the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship, but let's not call them citizens. Let's call them "civic participants" instead.

It's only a name, right? Everything else would be the same. Why would anyone object?
Cal

United States

#69 Apr 26, 2009
If marriage is a religious institution as so many people claim...how is it that marriages performed by a judge are still legal? I was married in a civil ceremony in which religion played NO part, yet my marriage is legal and binding. All this religion stuff is just a smokescreen so people can make their own personal prejudices seem "official". State marriage has nothing at all to do with religion. Just grow up and quit pretending like gay people getting married has any effect on straight marriage or religious freedom.
Jim Leahy

Highland Park, IL

#70 Apr 26, 2009
Hey Tribune editors,

You wonder why your going out of business? You might as well be the NY Times. You were a conservative paper displaying the values of the midwest now you just want to be liked at cocktail parties with the hoy poloy.
Have fun writing for the New Yorker. Oh yea they are going out of business as well. Maybe you will have to get real jobs and find out what real people think. Don't worry it will be the best thing that happens to you. Then maybe some of you will get together and found a conservative news paper that reflects midwestern values. LOL
IL Voter

Chicago, IL

#71 Apr 26, 2009
Thank You for taking a strong stance on gay rights
cjs

Dolton, IL

#72 Apr 26, 2009
VivianC wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain to me why it is so important for you to force your beliefs on other people? Same sex unions have NEVER been recognized. You knew that going in....
Please give me one good reason why traditional marriage should be redefined to appease a minority.
Laws are meant--in this country--to protect the minority. 2nd, why do you religio-cons have to LIE?? TACITUS recorded many a gay marriage in ancient Rome (particularly that of a war hero marrying his boyfriend), read up on Buddhism maybe too, eh? And about a half a dozen other cultures. So quit making crap up to suit your bigotry, please. Can you at least stick to the TRUTH, there ViVIAN? Or is that rule too "fair" for your taste?
Rose

Pacific Palisades, CA

#73 Apr 26, 2009
Jim Leahy wrote:
Hey Tribune editors,
You wonder why your going out of business? You might as well be the NY Times. You were a conservative paper displaying the values of the midwest now you just want to be liked at cocktail parties with the hoy poloy.
Have fun writing for the New Yorker. Oh yea they are going out of business as well. Maybe you will have to get real jobs and find out what real people think. Don't worry it will be the best thing that happens to you. Then maybe some of you will get together and found a conservative news paper that reflects midwestern values. LOL
They are going out of business because the day of the print newspaper has passed. Video killed the radio star.
cjs

Dolton, IL

#74 Apr 26, 2009
Buy your coffin now wrote:
gays = aids
keep away from my kids
Cripes, keep away from MINE, creep.
In fact, you're a case in point for why some people--straight or gay-- should not be allowed to raise children, marry...or walk around without a leash.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Realtime 1,507,969
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Another Deplorable 239,254
managers at Steak N Shake sell Passports 2 hr Nuri Harrigan dik... 1
Graduation in Detroit. 9 hr Another Chance 1
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Dudley 8,065
News Man charged with shooting near 26/Cal courthouse 10 hr former democrat 1
News Aurora man charged with kidnapping, murder of 1... 10 hr former democrat 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages