Civil unions neither utopia nor abyss - Editorials

Both sides in the emotional argument about allowing civil unions for same-sex couples in Hawaii seem to agree on one thing: It would lead to legalization of gay marriage.

[Chuck Anziulewicz]

There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.

Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.

At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.

[wize up]

What if I wanted to have 10 gay lovers at one time can we all get benefits.If we all got along?

[ACLU-Tom]

There's only one small problem. Civil Unions fall short of their guarantee of equal treatment, as we've found out here in NJ.

The NJ Civil Union Review Commission released a report in December of last year showing that Civil Unions weren't measuring up: http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/curc.html

Chuck Anziulewicz wrote:

There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.

[Chuck Anziulewicz]

DEAR WIZE UP:

Your question is irrelevant. This is not about polygamy. Otherwise I might just as easily say, "If you allow a man to marry ONE woman, who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to marry TWO OR MORE???"

Why is it that Straight couples are allowed to date, get engaged, get married and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me that doesn't seem like a very good value judgment.

The fact is, there is simply no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal rights and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

[Mama]

ACLU-Tom wrote:

There's only one small problem. Civil Unions fall short of their guarantee of equal treatment, as we've found out here in NJ.
The NJ Civil Union Review Commission released a report in December of last year showing that Civil Unions weren't measuring up: http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/curc.html
<quoted text>

Wrong!

This was an attempt by a small vocal minority to shove SPECIAL RIGHTS down the throats of Hawaii's Citizens.

Luckily, equal treatment was preserved and special rights for one specific sexual deviant group were not written into the statutes.

Equal rights for all.

No special rights for homosexual couples.

[Mama]

Good Morning ACLU TOM

It's a wonderful day.

Equal rights for all were preserved.

The real ACLU should be proud.

[OkieDarren]

Mama--"Wrong!
This was an attempt by a small vocal minority to shove SPECIAL RIGHTS down the throats of Hawaii's Citizens."

What special rights? Their own parking spaces? Free ice cream on Tuesday? What malarky. Nobody's asking anything but simple equality.

"Luckily, equal treatment was preserved"

Lie. Equal treatment was denied.

"and special rights for one specific sexual deviant group"

A bigoted lie. This isn't about sex, and EVERY credible scientific, mental health and medical authority has confirmed that it's PERFECTLY normal for some people to be gay. They are NOT deviant, sexually or otherwise.

"were not written into the statutes."

No, bigotry and discrimination were.

"Equal rights for all."

Hypocritical lie. You OPPOSE equal rights for all.

"No special rights for homosexual couples."

Fine. Nobody's asking for special rights.

Simple equality. Nothing more is asked. Nothing less is acceptable.

[OkieDarren]

Solomonn--"Some of the wisdom of the past is worth examining before making changes that can turn our society upside down and difficult to reverse."
What's so "wise" about discrimination? The "wisdom of the past" has often been dead wrong...slavery, sexism, injustices of every kind have been eliminated, they didn't turn anything "upside down" and they're difficult to reverse because there's no reason to reverse them.
"We’ve learned a difficult financial lesson after lending policies were relaxed to a point where no documentation was needed to borrow on expensive homes."
This is about a financial downturn, a temporary one, and about making sure that families can stay in their homes. Trying to make it about blaming the victims is a cheap stunt by millionaires who want desperately to keep their inexcusable Bush tax cuts.
"The altruistic rationale for helping the poor went beyond reason,"
No, it is not anywhere close to beyond reason to say people are better off owning their own home than renting and that every person should have decent housing.
"and when coupled with the short term greed of the lenders,"
Whom NOBODY seems to think ought to bear the brunt of the punishment.
"it created the financial tsunami of our generation."
Actually that's far from the only, or even the main, cause.
"The gradual acceptance of homosexuality is even more insidious."
There's nothing remotely "insidious" about an end to homophobia, which was always based in ignorance, fear, and bigotry.
"Initially, the adjective “gay” was transformed into a noun to that describes a homosexual man displaying effeminate mannerisms."
Times change, for the better often.
"It seemed to fit and it lost some of its negative connotation."
You seem disappointed that it's no longer a hateful slur, and that people had some pride and dignity and reclaimed the term.
"By definition heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex."
And by definition homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Big whoop.
"In restrooms, dorm rooms, and military barracks, it’s a simple process to separate facilities to maintain the needed level of decorum and comfort between the sexes. However, homosexuals make chaos out of this convention as separation, decorum and comfort disappear when it’s not just opposites that attract."
That's idiotic, but raises a bigger question...how do you address this? Do you suggest concentration camps where all gays are put to death? Or simply continuing the hate and bigotry and discrimination of the past, where there were JUST as many gay people, but you could pretend they weren't there so you wouldn't be...what was it, "uncomfortable"??
Do you really think gays are so out of control that they can't help but fall in love with every man they see in the locker room at the gym? And are you so insecure that the idea of a guy looking at you for half a second is more "insidious" than financial disaster for our nation or people losing their home?
The words get a life come to mind...
"The homosexual community is aware the confusion and conflict they create for themselves and others."
Lie. They don't create it. YOU create it in your own mind. They neither choose to be gay, nor choose for you to be so bloody freaked out about the existance of gay people. Bigotry causes the conflict. Blaming gays is like blaming black people for the problems of racism.
"Furthermore they loose the prestige of a family legacy,"
A dispicable lie. They're part of a family too, and their legacy is just as proud as anyone else's.
"are subject to increased suicide rates,"
ENTIRELY because of the hate and bigotry of people like you.

[OkieDarren]

"learn that many parents don’t want their children influenced by them,"
Again, ENTIRELY because of hate and bigotry. That's the stupidest, most idiotic and bigoted thing imaginable.
It's also the height of ignorance. If you think being around gays is going to turn your kids gay, you're really daft.
"and tragically they die far too soon as a result of their homosexual activities."
Lie. They die too soon because of hate and bigotry. It is a tragedy, but YOU talking about this as a tragedy while continuing to contribute to it is hypocrisy at it's worst.
"This should not be considered a victimless behavior."
I agree, your bigotry and hate has many victims.
On the other hand, homosexuality is not a behavior at all, and most certainly is entirely harmless.
"http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconseque... ;
A radical right hate group with the credibility of the bathroom wall in a truck stop. These dispicable lies have no place in a civilized conversation about policy in this country.
"http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/Pn... ;
Another dispicable hate group, spreading the blasphemous lie that homophobia and bigotry are somehow "Christian."
"Surprisingly, there is virtually no mention from the main stream media that confirms or refutes the homosexual lifespan issue."
Because the mainstream media is cowardly and conservative. They SHOULD talk about this issue, because proving these bigoted claims to be outright lies is something a 5th grader could easily do, and the fact that these hate groups operate without much attention allows them to fly under the radar, and allows people to be influenced by their sick hate without realizing either that they're spreading proven lies or the incredible amount of damage and suffering they're causing.
"Homosexual apologetics say that their orientation is genetically or culturally influenced."
Lie. There is no such thing as "homosexual apologetics." Legitimate scientists...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...say that it's genetically influenced. The cultural influence is being entirely debunked.
And the notion that it's just a "choice" is a proven and intentional bald-faced lie.
"Similarly, those with substance abuse, criminal, and heterosexual illicit tenancies can make similar claims,"
Totally unrelated issues, and more symptoms of deep bigotry, comparing being gay to anything you can think of that seems negative or "wrong" or harmful, when homosexuality is none of those.
"although the financial, cultural and spiritual outcomes are commonly destructive."
Unlike homosexuality.
"In addition to the pragmatic reasons to oppose homosexuality,"
Which do not exist.
"Judeo-Christians don’t mix words, clearly condemning this lifestyle on Biblical grounds:"
Lie. It's not a "lifestyle," and is never mentioned in scripture, not even once.
"Leviticus 18:22"
Not about homosexuality, and part of a vast list of obscure old Jewish purity codes which NOBODY, not even observant conservative Jews, follow today and which Jesus specifically said no longer apply.
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”"
These words do not ever appear in scripture. It's a lie.
"And for raising children: Luke 17:2"
Again, Luke never ONCE says a single word about homosexuality. Using scripture as a weapon of hate is an anti=Christian hateful act.
"It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
The idea that this has a THING to do with homosexuality is downright idiocy.
"More recent wisdom: "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness." Author: Mary Wollstonecraft"
Also not remotely related, since being gay is not chosen, and is not evil.

[OkieDarren]

Mama--"You will continue to spew from the Homosexual Mafia Handbook on one liners."

Also known as "facts."

"Truth is many people who are "different" also cannot get married today."

And once again the bigots try desperately to promote the hilarious lie that "if we allow gays to marry, we have to allow (fill in the blank) to marry."
Because there is NO legitimate reason to not have marriage equality for gay people, they compare them to others, who are not comparable.

"This would give SPECIAL RIGHTS to your one small group."

Still a lie. They're not asking for special rights. They're asking for simple equality.

[Name]

Okie Darren...don't you know by now it's not worth the key strokes. Having a rational discussion about this issues is out of the question with these people. They don't have an original thought, can't generate one and will only spew the Karl Rove spun version of scripture.

Unfortunately, the theocracy is a reality...so is the patriarch and plutocracy but that's for another discussion...although they're all connected...but I digress...the theocracy is a reality and that's what needs to be undone. Removing the personal/moral/religious aspect to this argument is important because it goes to the very heart of the separation issue.

[informed]

OkieDarren_ "They neither choose to be gay, nor choose for you to be so bloody freaked out about the existance of gay people. Bigotry causes the conflict. Blaming gays is like blaming black people for the problems of racism.
"Furthermore they loose the prestige of a family legacy,"
A dispicable lie. They're part of a family too, and their legacy is just as proud as anyone else's.
"are subject to increased suicide rates,"
ENTIRELY because of the hate and bigotry of people like you. "

So because someone disagrees with your lifestyle and is being completely honest with their feelings, they are hateful AND bigotted? It is only okay for you to express your opinion and all, but not have anyone disagree with you lest they be a "bloody bigot"? I also think the reference to the family part is meant as a means to illustrate the fact that if left to homosexuals, the human race would be extinct..you cannot procreate together no matter how much you may desire a family. You need to come down of your screaming hissy fit and try and listen to what others are really saying and have some real dialogue where people can express their feelings and thoughts...how else do you imagine things will EVER work out if all you do is throw back insults at someone who disagrees with you? There is no dialogue going on, just ugliness and therefore, nothing gets resolved.

[informed]

OkieDarren wrote:

Mama--"You will continue to spew from the Homosexual Mafia Handbook on one liners."
Also known as "facts."
"Truth is many people who are "different" also cannot get married today."
And once again the bigots try desperately to promote the hilarious lie that "if we allow gays to marry, we have to allow (fill in the blank) to marry."
Because there is NO legitimate reason to not have marriage equality for gay people, they compare them to others, who are not comparable.
"This would give SPECIAL RIGHTS to your one small group."
Still a lie. They're not asking for special rights. They're asking for simple equality.

I am being completely honest, where do you draw the line? If someone really feels their choice of who they are attracted to is a legit one, why can they not be entitled to it too? It is a valid argument. There are people who live in their "own" reality and think they are normal (PLEASE for the LOVE of GOD do not take this the wrong way because I really see you doing it) and clearly they are not, but why can they not be entitled to their desires and "equality" like you want? Really where do we draw the line? Giving certain groups special rights is not equal rights for everyone...again, a valid argument. Please keep the discussion legit and try and read everything BEFORE you respond. Let's try and have an open honest dialogue with no extreme expressions (like hate and bigot) it only further causees the dialogue to shut down and I will refuse to try and have a conversation with you if that's the case. I am only trying to get at the heart of the issue...really.(more specifically, that you have your beliefs about homosexuality and I have mine...simple enough)

[alice]

This bill will eventually pass. Attitudes are changing.

[Von in Aiea]

They are not entitled to any of those benefits as it should be.

I suggest our governments designate Rabbit Island as a gay community and give them some kind of free handout to keep them happy if they live within their own community and leave the rest of us alone. You can't separate them with a crowbar so that would work out fine.

[realist]

OK, nothing but the grease to make the slope more slippery.

[An Observer]

Put it to a vote by the people. let both sides make their cases. Let's live by the majority's will. It's probably a scary concept for Hanabusa Hooser but it's the best way.

[alice]

alice wrote:

This bill will eventually pass. Attitudes are changing.

true...join the 21st century hawaii

[mike]

Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Canada for over 5 yrs. now and I can personally tell you it's not a problem.Civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage- not one church,temple,mosque,etc has had to marry a same gender couple.There is no conflict!For those who don't like the idea of a gay couple being married,get over it!Religion can not play a role in a secular nation when determining social policy- end of story!

[informed]

It has been put to the voters in many states and the outcome.....unanimous against it. However, it doesn't matter what the majority say, it is still being fought by the minority groups who cannot fathom what the majority want. What more can we the people do or say?! And Alice in Canada, we are in the 21st century, we just disagree on things...it's the American way...well, at least for some. Some can say whatever they want, but if you dare challenge them or disagree with them you are labeled with many vulgar, ugly, and disgusting names which are not true.