Many people of faith reject banning of same-sex unions

[rodeodance]

Comming to WI? !!!



http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion//index.php?ntid=20054&ntpid=0


Many people of faith reject banning of same-sex unions

By Rev. Herbert Chilstrom
December 5, 2004

In the heat of the recent elections, emotions ran high over many issues, including the war in Iraq, Social Security, welfare, education and much more. None, however, generated more response than the issue of same-gender marriages or civil unions. ......

.....Wisconsin's proposed legislation would relegate these families to second-class status in all legal matters. People would lose rights they have fought hard to gain, and children and families would be harmed......


....The proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution would ban any legal status that is "substantially similar" to marriage. That means civil unions and domestic partner benefits, which offer many of the rights of marriage, like hospital visitation or the right of a child to have two legally recognized parents, would also be banned.

Moreover, it could jeopardize the right of employers to offer health insurance to domestic partners of their employees, as more than 100 Wisconsin employers currently do. This failure to recognize that same-gender couples deserve the same rights as other couples is a moral failure.......

[Ardee]

1. Land of the free home of the brave

This is an issue whose time is coming. We have many inequities in this nation and, slowly but surely, we will see true freedom come to America.....but not until we stop fractionalizing, blaming one bogeyman after then next, and come together!

[justgamma]

2. What is the difference between

civil unions and marriage?

[drostie]

3. The difference?

Mostly a name and a tradition.

The ideal thing would be for government to only recognize "civil unions" period -- that is, for it to create a legal idea of a "family", and then only deal with the family unit, and not with different unions.

The biggest thing conservative theists are missing is that the idea of "gay marriage" does not require a church to marry two gay people -- it simply requires the government to recognize two people as married.

I do see the conservative argument, and I can even treat it as a cultural respect issue (and we should respect others' cultures). But if that's how it's going to work, it would be wise for government to butt out of marriage completely.

[CatholicEdHead]

4. Think government will push it on the church

They do not realize that civil unions are only for the government licences. Conservatives make the "boogeyman" case that gay marriages will then be allowed in every church no matter what. It is up to each church if they want to do it. Some already do it, some will never do it.

[justgamma]

5. My husband and I

were united in a civil ceremony 36 years ago. Just wanted to be sure that we were really "married".