Why Should I Not Support Civil Unions?

[srpantalonas]

People keep advising me to stay away from this issue (hello, Hoeffel folks--this one's going to challenge you). I don't see how we can ask for economic, social, and civil justice for one group but not another. I support it. You?

Edit: added this link:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x6162.xml

[WindRavenX]

1. Support it

The more people think that they are wrong, the harder it is to change that mentality.
We must act now.

[w13rd0]

2. Are you running for office?

I support it (civil unions with rights recognized and protected by the fed), so do the vast majority of our democratic candidates. I don't get why it's even an issue beyond the GOP wanting to make it one because they get their pampers in a wad over people going outside the bounds of church-state sanctioned missionary sex.

[srpantalonas]

3. yes--in PA

http://www.CrystleForSenate.com

[mitchtv]

4. go for it.

most americans believe in fairness. The subject can be approached as an issue for fairness. Every gay person I know has some kind of Horror story they can tell regarding the currant state of affairs. Just watch the HBO movie"if these walls could talk" especially the Vanessa Redgrave part. It happens all over, every day.

[srpantalonas]

5. I do support it and will be vocal about it...

Pennsylvania isn't "ready" for it but that doesn't matter--you can't apply principles selectively.

[rucky]

10. They'll never be "ready" for it...

if nobody talks about it.

BRAVO! If I lived in PA, you'd have my vote.

[ComerPerro]

6. Kick

Good luck in the race!

[Red_Storm]

7. Why would anyone.................

think they have the right to determine another person's destiny and interfere with their pursuit of love and happiness.........

[w4rma]

8. Here is Dean's POV on the subject.

…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

IMHO, if you don't think that Pennsylvania is ready for this, then you should emphasize that civil unions are a civil rights matter and they are not infringing on anyone's religion.

[srpantalonas]

9. it is NOT a states issue

It's an issue of economic and social justice, equaltiy of opportunity for all. You can't depend on individual state interpretations of those principles, which is why it must be handled at the national level.

[Egnever]

12. Just curious but ....

If you personally believe in it why are you even asking this question?


Of course if it doesnt really matter to you one way or another and you are looking for input to make up your mind one way or the other thats a different story.

You seem to be of the opinion though that it is about equal protection for all.

Being that you seem to see it clearly. My answer is you should suport it because its the right thing to do.


Any other position is bigotry.

[srpantalonas]

13. Correct--I'm clear on the issue; 67% ok with Santorum's statements in PA

But I live in and am running in Pennsylvania, where something like 67% of people polled were ok with Rick Santorum's statements. People here view this position as political death. I view it as the result of consistent application of principles, which I would hope enough voters appreciate even if they disagree with some of the resulting positions.

[election_2004]

17. Hoeffel question

Has Hoeffel said that he would oppose civil unions?

[w4rma]

14. I've highlighted some relevant phrases that might help.

…
Q: An Arizona gay couple recently sued at the state level for the right to marry, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Texas' sodomy laws. Do you think that ruling opens the doors for states to pass same-sex marriage laws, and would you support that?

A: In Vermont, we chose not to pass a same-sex marriage law. Instead, we were the first state to pass a civil union law, which lets gay people have the same legal rights as everyone else. They can get inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights.

As president, I would leave it up to each state if they wanted to pass a same-sex marriage law. It should not be a federal issue.
…
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0817deanQampA17.html

…
MR. DONALDSON: Rights. Now let's talk about the word "marriage." You are against marriage of the same sex. Why?

MR. DEAN: I've never said that, as a matter of fact. What I am against -- what I believe in is equal rights under the law for every single American.

MR. DONALDSON: Then you are for marriage?

MR. DEAN: We chose to do civil unions in Vermont because we believed that marriage should be left to the churches, and that equal rights under the law was what the state owes everybody.

MR. DONALDSON: I'm trying to find out what your position is on marriage. You are quite clear as to what you did in Vermont, and the audience has applauded you for doing it. What about marriage though? Why not allow gays to marry?

MR. DEAN: I feel like I'm back on Tim Russert's show here. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MR. DONALDSON: Tim was but a pup when I was doing this in Washington. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MR. DEAN: I knew I should have said the George Stephanopoulos show. (Laughter.) My position is marriage is not the federal government's business. That's the state's business. If the state of Massachusetts next week or next month, or whenever they decide their court cases, said gay people can get married, the federal government needs to recognize them as having the same rights as everybody else. If another state decides that they are going to have civil unions, the federal government needs to give them the same rights that everybody else has. The federal government doesn't take a position on marriage -- and it shouldn't. What the federal government does is to make sure to do what we did in Vermont, was to make sure that every single American has the same rights as every other American.

MR. DONALDSON: Governor, forgive me. What you seem to be saying, and I know you'll correct me if I've misinterpreted you, is that the federal government should see that everyone has the rights, privileges, obligations of heterosexuals who marry but not the word?

MR. DEAN: It's not the federal government's business, Sam.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, then why is it the federal government's business to confer rights and make certain that they have them, but not the word, governor?

MR. DEAN: I saw the --

MR. DONALDSON: I am saying this because, as you know, sir -- and you're a very smart man, and I'm not trying to pander to you. (Laughter.) But it's the word itself. If you ask Americans, according to the polls, they are overwhelmingly for granting gays and lesbians all the rights that you have been talking about. They seem to be against the word "marriage." Is that the hang-up?

MR. DEAN: I think that is the hang-up among states. And what we decided to do, since we're the only people that have ever done this --

MR. DONALDSON: Why should it be a hang-up though?

MR. DEAN: Because marriage has a long, long history of a religious institution, and marriage -- when the rule of law developed it became a civil and a religious institution, and people have a lot of trouble telling the difference. My view is that we have to have a civil institution which provides equal rights for every single American. That's what we did in Vermont. When other states do it -- and I want them to do it -- we will have to recognize those rights, and we should.

MR. DONALDSON: I am sorry to belabor it, but I think --

MR. DEAN: As long as I don't get time taken out from my closing statement. (Laughter.)

MR. DONALDSON: No, I won't take from your time, sir. As you know, many people are married by the justice of the peace, by a judge. I don't know whether ship captains marry many these days, but these are all secular individuals that have nothing to do with the religious ceremony.

MR. DEAN: That's true.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, then why say it's a religious institution?

MR. DEAN: Because it is.
…
http://www.hrc.org/speakingofequality/forum_transcript.asp

[w4rma]

15. Here is some more information. This is probably more relevant.

…
MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. Governor, you have said that you can't force civil unions on the other states. If you were president, what would you do then? Just talk about it and then take no further action?

MR. DEAN: No, I -- first of all, as president I would recognize the rights of all same-sex couples who had entered into civil unions. Right now there are approximately 1,400 rights that are available to married people that are not available to people who are not allowed to get married. I will change that by recognizing -- we are asking Congress to recognize those rights. We can't tell -- marriage is not a federal business. That's why I think DOMA is unconstitutional. It's not the federal government's business who gets married and who doesn't. That's left to the states. What is the federal government's business is equal rights under the law, and that it will provide.

MR. DONALDSON: So if a couple is married in Vermont for instance and goes to a state, moves to a state that does not have the civil union, they would have what? All the federal rights, not the state rights?

MR. DEAN: If a couple has -- well, there's two parts, you ask two questions really. First of all --

MR. DONALDSON: I've been known to ask three. (Laughter.)

MR. DEAN: If a couple moves -- if a couple has a civil union in Vermont, they have all the same rights that every other couple has under federal law, if I am president of the United States. If they move to another state, what the federal government -- the federal government cannot tell another state that they have to have marriage or civil unions. But they can tell them they have to find a way to have equal rights under the law, and that's consistently my position. I also believe that applies to people who go to Canada and take advantage of the new Canadian laws that permit gay marriage. When those couples come back to the United States they are entitled, through the legal principle of comity, to the same rights that every other couple has.
…
http://www.hrc.org/speakingofequality/forum_transcript.asp

[MercutioATC]

16. The METHOD is a State issue. Requiring equality is a Federal issue.

Dean wants a Federal requirement for equal legal status. How the states choose to do that would be up to them.

[mitchtv]

27. its a states issue, until you get to immigration

then its a big fat equal rights(US) issue. and states rights is not enough, sorry

[MercutioATC]

28. I'm missing something here....could you explain?

Where does immigration play into this?

[foreigncorrespondent]

11. Civil Unions is great...

...but it isn't the begin all, end all of gay equality in the United States.

It only makes the gay and lesbian community of the state adopting civil union laws equal. What is needed is federal, because so much isn't covered in the civil unions that go state by state.

Civil unions could become reality in CA, yet Sapphocrat my partner, still won't have the right to sposnor me her partner of 3+ years for immigration.

The repukes are constantly stalling the Permanent Partners Immigration act, most likely because they don't want more queers in the country. So something needs to be done on the federal level, to make it equal across the board. That includes marriage rights, because without marriage rights, no one is equal, are they?

[AP]

18. There's a difference between "supporting" and "running on"

I support abolishing the death penalty, but I certainly wouldn't run on it in 2004. It would look like I had no idea about how most Americans experience reality.

[Evanstondem]

19. Who is "running on" civil unions?

It's an issue, but not the key issue for Dean or any other candidate.

Support for the death penalty is much higher than opposition to civil unions, and I suspect that a plurality favors it in states that a Dem candidate will need to win in 2004.

[AP]

24. From orginal post:

"People keep advising me to stay away from this issue" -- I read that to mean not that one should take a different stance on the issue, but that one shouldn't make that the focal point of the campaign.

I saw a poll which ranked twenty or so issues in order of the percentage of people who said the issue was important to them. Civil unions came in dead last. If you make a theme the focus of your campaign which most people don't care about, you run the risk of appearing out of touch.

The top two issues were the economy and very closesly behind that, national security.

[lcordero]

20. I really don't like the term

I support same-sex marriage though. I feel that civil unions should only be supported as a last resort.

[Hep]

25. Wha?

You think it's more important to tell churches what they should do than it is to grant rights to same sex couples?

[lcordero]

21. I really don't like the term

I support same-sex marriage though. I feel that civil unions should only be supported as a last resort.

[terrya]

22. I support gay marriage, but

I'd like to see gay marriage, actually. I think allowing gay and to legally marry and to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples is simply the right thing to do. Gay marriage will strenghten the institution of marriage. Not weaken it as those opposed to gay marriage would argue.

But, I'm enough of a realist to see that gay marriage isn't going to happen soon. We have to contend with the Federal Marriage Amendment currently in Congress and opposition to gay marriage in this country.

As a gay man, of course I feel that gay relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones. We want to recognize our long term relationships and to celebrate the love we have with our partners. And to enjoy the same rights doing so as heterosexuals. I'm for any sort of arrangement...and civil unions will do...that will give us the same rights that heterosexuals take for granted.

[Mairead]

23. 77% of Massachusetts voters would accept civil marriage rights for LGs

"Fully, 77 percent of voters would accept civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples," said Dr. Robert Meadow, president of Decision Research in Washington D.C."

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/102903massMarriage.htm

[SidDithers]

26. Civil Unions are not marriages...

And, in my opinion, would create a type of "second class" union. Supporting gay marriage over civil unions would be a better position, because then equal rights really would be equal.

Practically, tho, gay marriage rights really have no hope in hell of passing in, what I see as, the much more conservative US. So, support of civil unions is better than no support at all. Baby steps :)

A previous poster also raised the issue of forcing churches to perform gay marriages. I don't see it that way, if a church chooses not to perform the marriage, that is up to them.

What I don't support is the idea that, if a church demonimation chooses to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, they are prevented from doing that.

Sid

[SahaleArm]

29. Equal rights.

From a non-religious perspective, marriage seems to bring more benefits to the table, from tax implications to employee benefits. Why not treat it as a contractual obligation for the reasons above and call it a civil marriage. It seems as though the current situation violates the equal protection clause.

[srpantalonas]

30. thank you everyone

I appreciate your comments. Watch for mine at http://www.charliecrystle.com