CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Rich Miller — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:42:35 -0000

The gov't will never mandate that churches perform certain ceremonies a certain way. Well, they might try, but it won't succeed.

Total red herring.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

How Ironic — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:25:22 -0000

@DD
You have got to be kidding. You don't need a church to be "married". Why would the govt suddenly feel the need to mandate that they do?

The laws about pharmacists has been covered here already. That is a JOB, not a church. And the debate is not relevant to this discussion.

And so what if "marrige" is recognized by the Govt? It still won't affect your church. They don't have to perform it.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

dupage dan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:07:47 -0000

How Ironic,

I am not so sure that the gov't won't step in to force churches to perform these ceremonies. I believe that the govt just coerced "eharmony" to provide match-making services for the gay community after a lengthy legal action that could have ended up in bankrupting the company. Laws forcing pharmacists (who claim religious concerns) to give out birth control (including day after pills) are in effect.

The stated goal for the gay community, known by their own statements, is for full marriage approved and sanctioned by the gov't. The consequences of that, intended or not, are a legitimate concern for many.

Debating that issue w/mutual respect is more interesting to me than inflammatory statements.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

zatoichi — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:53:45 -0000

This issue brings out the same basic arguements every time. The 'destruction' of marriage, what Jesus said, gov policy vs religion, for the sake of the children, insurance coverage, who loves who more, who cares vs moral outrage, Bible principles (I always like the stoning the wife references). There are more people living in different family combinations than most people can imagine. Watching the straight and gay couples in my family and other parts of my life, I see very little difference in any of them. Some are great relations with good kids while others are immature self centered yahoos. This is a personal matter. The state needs to be involved for the legal issues which should be the same for every legal adult regardless of religious standing. Churches can do as they like in their church for their members who believe. If gay marriage is such a threat to anyone's marriage you must not have much of a marriage in the first place. If you said the vows/promises, stick to them like you said you would.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

How Ironic — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:42:15 -0000

@Pluto

"You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control"

1. They already do. I haven't seen many human sacrifices lately. But I would imagine if my church wanted to have one, the government might intervene. So far my church seems to be holding on.

2. This law wouldn't "require" churches to perform these ceremonies. So really, what is the Gov't imposing? Nothing.

The "next push" is a shadow arguement.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Plutocrat03 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:29:40 -0000

The problem with expanding definitions is that there are unintended consequences.

I am with Vman in many ways. I have spent considerable time in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and have family in Germany. The secular progressive governments there have chiseled away at the foundations of families and insinuate the government in many places it should not be. Many of the ideas being proposed in our country have a history in Europe and do not work there. Why do we want to repeat the same mistakes

You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control as described by /south Side Mike

I am not against civil unions per se, but am concerned about where the next push will be in the name of fairness. If granted that should be the end of the quest of same sex marriage. Like that will happen.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

dupage dan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:21:34 -0000

The state has historically gotten involved in marriage since same frequently produces children and the state has an interest in such issue. Marriage has now become something to show acceptance since, if the gov't approves, it should be ok with the rest of us. There have been arguements made here that if you open the door to gays you open the doors to multiples (3somes) or other types of marriage. Who's to say what is wrong? Does the state have any right to limit who is to be married? Can the state say, "ok to straights and gays but no to mulitples"? If 3 people love each other very much why not? Multiple biblical passages can be used to support such a notion. Is this the direction we as a society want to go? If marriage of gays is so troubling to a large part of our society is it worth it to tear said society apart so that some can have it? Civil unions can be crafted to make sure those who sign on have rights of inheritance, access to benefits, etc. You can then craft your own language to represent the ceremony. Different groups have created different ceremonies to celebrate their unique community/culture. Kwanzaa comes to mind. No matter how you slice this arguement up someone is going to feel as tho their rights are being trampled. Using a strategy of calling the opponents ignorant, stupid or Neandrathal is not going to engender much support or sympathy from the other side.

Gays then get the rights to live in a miserable, commited, relationship like the rest of us. ;)

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Objective Dem — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:17:00 -0000

I find the concern raised in the the letter over transgender people using bathrooms very funny. First off, I can't think of how this even relates to the gay marriage debate.

Second, it is a made-up issue. I don't think there will be women dressed as men hanging out in a bathroom to attack little boys. The concern is men dressed as women hanging out to attack little girls. I follow the news a lot and I can't remember ever hearing a story like this. Even if it has happened, its certainly not a common problem. I think we would be better off addressing real problems rather than worrying about imaginary issues.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Anon — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:10:13 -0000

@ How Ironic I am sorry, all couples, gay and straight, should get civilly united by the government I dont care what we call it.
Let the churhes marry whom they wish. Just seperate the two.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

How Ironic — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:53:23 -0000

@Anon,

I guess I would hope that 40 years from now, when the the "new guard" is starting to run the show I'm not defending discrimintory policies.

That's what this is about. 40 years ago, it was minorities.(civil rights) 40 years before that, it was womans' rights. Before that it was cheap labor from Europe. And 40 before that it was slavery.

Why don't we just finish it now.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Objective Dem — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:49:41 -0000

I disagree with the notion that gays and lesbians can obtain the same benefits through simple legal documents.

One example is health care benefits for a spouse are treated as taxable income by the federal government. This can cost a couple hundred dollars every month.

Another example is the surviving spouse, must pay taxes on an inheritance. Annie Leibovitz, the famous photographer, was just in the news because she had to take out a loan in order to pay taxes for inheriting her home from her deceased lover, Susan Sontag.

This is simply not fair.

It is also important to note that the issues I presented were not issues 100 years ago or 2000 years ago.

And the right somehow has this notion that homosexuality was never accepted, except when a civilization was about to fall. This is simply not true. Last time I checked the ancient greeks helped civilized the world and they certainly engaged in homosexual activity.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Anon — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:46:09 -0000

Paul you are exactly why persons with certain beliefs are so upset about this. Someday you and you generation will be in charge. Not only do they feel their beliefs are being attacked but they fear the next geration just wont care.

It is time for civil authorities to get out of the business and leave it to the believers. Just issue the civil unions and be done with the whole mess.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

DB — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:31:22 -0000

The whole argument is just *throws hands up*.

People need to shut up and mind their own houses. What in Hades does it matter to straight people if two gay people want to get married? How does that affect a straight person's marriage? Answer: it doesn't. No one is forcing anyone else to be gay or have a gay marriage. If two people want to celebrate their committment to each other, they should be allowed to do so.

This idea that marriage is some holy union only to be enjoyed by a specific group of people is a joke. The concept of "marriage" has changed again and again throughout history. Marriages have been for love, for convenience, for political alliances (think medieval Europe there), etc. Back in ye olde Bible, men had multiple wives and concubines, as was already pointed out.

The fact is married person get certain civil perks(be it in the form of how you get taxed, legal recourse to health benefits, the right to visit your partner in the hospital, distribution of property at death, etc.). It is inherently unfair and discriminatory to deny these civil benefits to people based on their sexual orientation.

All unions should be considered "civil". Churches have no business engaging in telling people what CIVIL benefits they should be entitled to. Are people forgetting that you can get "married" in a church, but unless you actually get a marriage certificate from city hall (or whatnot), the government doesn't really give a hoot.

So everyone, regardless of orientation, should be able to get that civil marriage certificate. End of story. "Traditionalists" would do well to remember that no one is saying churches should be required to hold ceremonies for gay unions. That's still at the discretion of the particular church/congregation/denomination. And they can choose to be as exclusive and discriminatory as they like since it's their own religion. You can still be safe from "the dirty gays".

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Paul Richardson — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:20:51 -0000

I am a 23 year old whipper-snapper. Typically, I find myself thinking just a bit more conservatively than my fellow twentysomethings. Not on this issue.

Something I just noticed after reading through the string of comments: We are completely ignoring the actual policy. Call me naive but shouldn't legislative debate center on the Pros and Cons of a specific piece of legislation?

Do we ask what health care policy was in vogue 20,000 years ago? No. So why do we think the opinion of cave men matters on this issue?

Do we ask what the Bible tells us about stoning criminals to death? No. So why do we think the Bible is a guide here?

The greatest generation may have many reasons to look down upon us twentysomethings. But on this issue we are the ones looking at our respected elders in disappointed puzzlement.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

47th Ward — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:13:07 -0000

jerry 101, well said!

We're arguing over semantics when we should be debating contract law. Gender and religious tradition are irrelevant to the discussion.

Faith v. Reason arguments can't be won by either side.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

jerry 101 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:07:34 -0000

I think it's incredibly offensive that "christians" can demand that marital contracts can only be signed by people of the opposite sex (I won't even say straight people, plenty of gay people have married persons of the opposite sex...see ted haggard and larry craig for two examples).

So, instead of continuing this needless fight, the government should cease sanctioning marriages altogether. Instead, the government should just issue civil union certificates to people wishing to form a legally binding contract in the tradition of marriage.

If you want to get married, well, that's between you and whoever is willing to act as the officiant for your ceremony, should you choose to have one.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Pot calling kettle — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:00:04 -0000

I think the state should ONLY grant civil unions. The state's interest rests in recognizing legal relationships between consenting adults. Restrictions on those civil unions should have some rational basis. (And "two guys kissing is gross" is not a rational basis.)

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

just ducky — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:39:25 -0000

i think ghost's comment gets right to the heart of this argument. BRAVO, i love it!

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Amy — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:38:48 -0000

the key is the word marriage. i'd be fine with changing the law so the state requires a civil union license(and maybe even ceremony like in France) for anyone who wants to be legally joined to another adult . then get married by a church if that's your choice. I don't know if that is acceptable to the lgbt community let alone the right wing community. the word marriage is a loaded term. i would not want to force a religious institution to do something.

but i do want to make sure that the state recognizes unions between adults, man and man, woman and woman, woman and man, no matter how smart, stupid, childish or oddly matched they may seem. it's their adult choice and the state should let them be legally joined.

then everyone should go fight their battles at their respective religious institutions.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

How Ironic — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:33:31 -0000

@Ben S.

So you are then a "whipper-snapper"?

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

L.S. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:32:32 -0000

--Religious people are not insensitive ignorami. We are not lemmings blindly following demigods. We are a majority of Americans--

No, VM, you're not. About 40% of Americans regularly attend church. Most pools on basic civil union rights get above 50% approval. Because at their heart, most Americans do not hate gay people, they are not offended by gay people and they do not believe gay people are out to molest their children.

And do you really want to lean on historical law as your main pillar in this argument. Think about some of the other things that have been historial law for thousands of years (and still are today in some place)...the right to own people as property, the right to kill women for disobediance. Human history is pretty messed up sometimes. Every once in a while there are chances to fix small parts of it. This is one of them. Giving two people who love each other the same basic rights as everyone else is not sinful. If you think it is, you are in the minority. You're entitled to your opinion, just not the ability to impose it on others.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Tip — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:30:36 -0000

Someone should tell HRC that the Nauvoo Ward doesn't have offices in the Temple and doesn't meet there. They should be calling the ward building where that congregation actually worships and the Bishop has on office.
217-453-2300
or 217-453-6300

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Ben S. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:59:40 -0000

I knew that VanMan was conservative, but after his defense of McCarthyism (of which my grandfather was a victim) and pigeonheadeness on both this issue and marijuana legalization I'm tempted to invent a time machine and send him back to the 1950s where he'll be happy.

Our generation is accepting of gays and we will be legalizing gay marriage as soon as we are of age to run for office, whether you like it or not.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Some Guy — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:31:35 -0000

But it is a slippery slope...once civil unions are legal, then they'll make gay marriage legal.

Sooner or later they will require gay marriage for everyone, no matter if you are gay or not.

If only we had the capacity to recognize that different situations allow for different outcomes. I lament that we lack the rational capacity to debate one issue at a time (civil unions), and to address the next step(gay marriage, or whatever) on its own merits.

If only our brilliant ancestors, after they discovered fire and the wheel and sanctified heterosexual marriage, had taken some time to learn how to stop on the slippery slope.

But alas, we remain bound by inevitability.

Re: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust

Belle — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:16:31 -0000

Respect is EARNED. You can't DEMAND it. Why do I need to know who is gay and who isn't? I don't care. As for the rallies and shouting and screaming and putting down religious people that is being done on behalf of gay marriage laws, take a breath people. You lost me the first time I found out proponents were calling people, mostly Christian people, stupid for not supporting the gay agenda. In my mind they are now equal with all the hetero, obnoxious, belligerent, close minded jerks I also ignore.