Posted on 12/11/2006 4:23:50 PM PST by calcowgirl
THE LATEST trend from California could be non-marriage marriage -- thanks to a new bill sponsored by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, to expand civil unions to heterosexual couples.
You've heard straight supporters of same-sex marriage quip before: How can same-sex marriage affect their heterosexual unions? Unwittingly, Migden has given ammunition to those who argue that same-sex unions will change the institution of marriage for everyone as she works to offer all heterosexuals Marriage Lite.
Migden is the author of the 1999 civil union bill that allowed same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners. ... The 1999 bill also allowed heterosexual couples with one partner older than 62 to register as domestic partners -- in order to allow seniors to protect their pensions while enjoying some benefits of marriage. Migden had wanted civil unions to apply to straight and same-sex couples of all ages, but agreed to the over-62 compromise. Now with Senate Bill 11, she is pushing to extend the benefits of having it both ways to all heterosexual couples.
(snip)
An SB11 fact sheet notes that some 40 percent of unwed mothers are "professional, older women who want to have babies" and some "may simply have chosen to live with their significant others first. If those unmarried couples prefer registering as domestic partners so their children can have access to health and other benefits, they should be provided that opportunity."
Except: Whether parents marry or not, they have an obligation to provide for their children and can list their children as dependents for health care. SB11 would not affect children -- it would benefit unmarried parents. And, I'll add, while saddling employers with cost of benefits for adults who choose not to wed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
never understood 'common law' marriages- either get married or don't- but if you don't and cohabitate with someone- don't expect 'rights' which aren't really rights- but are rather perks meant for raising healthy families so the kids can grow up stable, be an asset to society & support the government- purely an economic benifit- the government pays people to produce future budget deficit contributors. http://sacredscoop.com
Somebody tell Midget the voters already voted on this, please!
You get labelled as cruel for saying it, but why is it fair that gay couples get tax breaks, etc... for marriage when they contribute NOTHING back to society in terms of future generations? I thought the whole purpose of these tax incentives was to encourage marriage...
And as another aside, this sounds like the PAC system that they have in France. It's pretty common for roommates to form a union under a PAC to save some money by filing their taxes jointly.
Your buddy has a visa to work over seas, and you couldn't get one? Why, just "marry" him under a PAC, and you're free to go.
The system is a total scam and makes a mockery of marriage.
"You get labelled as cruel for saying it, but why is it fair that gay couples get tax breaks, etc... for marriage when they contribute NOTHING back to society in terms of future generations? I thought the whole purpose of these tax incentives was to encourage marriage..."
I know a several people (catholics) that are divorced and can not re-marry and still receive the sacraments. These civil unions might work for them, and there are a lot more of them than there are gays...
exactly- the 'rights' that gay people scream about as far as marriage are concerned are NOT rights, they are marriage perks/incentives to encourage procreation, AND they are meant for couples who will raise their kids in the healthiest atmosphere possible, and statistics are VERY clear that growing up with 2 mommies or daddies is NOT the most healthy atmosphere psycologically and emotionally!
civil union couples get nearly EVERY 'perk' that hetero couples get, yet they will not be happy until they have totally destroyed God's intended function of marriage, procreation and child rearing. Screaming that they are being denied 'rights' when the truth of the matter is that EVERY 'right' a civilian enjoys is bestowed upon EVERYONE regardless of orientation- the 'rights' that they scr4eam about of course are the perks- and not infact rights!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
In general, if both spouses work, your taxes go UP when you get married.
HA!!!! Homosexual suckers!!! Pay more taxes. Be like real married husbands and wives and pay more taxes.
Your response is a perfect example of why it is so important to understand what you talk about before you open your mouth.
Your catholic friend (I left the c in Catholic lowercase 'cause you do) can re-marry. The state does not prohibit them from re-marrying. The church will just not recognize it, but recognition from the church is not required to make a marriage legal in this nation.
There are two types of marriage in this nation: civil and religious marriages. The state is not involved in religious marriages except in as much as they will allow religious services to conduct both religious marriages and civil marriages at the same time. This is provided that the religious marriage does not violate the civil marriage.
The state, however, only recognizes the civil marriage. This is why people can be marriage by the justice of the peace but the church does not recognize the marriage, or homosexuals can engage in "commitment ceremonies" at the local wannabe church and the state will not recognize the farce. (yeah, my bias is showing)
The civil marriage is a contract between the state and the parties to the marriage (husband and wife). The state provides benefits to the married couple (right of inheritance, tax breaks, etc) because it derives a benefit from the married couple (children, stable homes to raise children, perpetuation of society/the state). Since homosexuals can not provide the benefits the state seeks, the state does not enter into a contract with them.
Anyone who advocates the state “recognizing” homosexual “marriages” doesn’t understand the purpose or history of marriage. Marriage is not a right, but rather a contract freely entered into by the parties involved. Forcing the state into a contract it cannot benefit from is idiotic whether we call it marriage, civil unions, or marriage lite.
I'm not Catholic, so I truly don't know this. Can one receive communion while living in unrepentant sin? Are ther Catholics who shack up rather than remarry, because by doing so they can receive communion?
The Catholic Church already draws a distinction between a civil and sacramental marriage.
We need to get gov't *completely* out of this "marriage" business. All gov't should concern itself with is a registry so it has documentation the union began for when the union dissolves by divorce or a death.
In a society with free exercise of religion, gov't has no business in the sacred. If a church doesn't wish to marry any couple, that's its faith ruling.
Gov't has made its legal "marriage" a kind of failed incentive program. "No fault" and the "sexual revolution" among women has gutted traditional marriage.
Since technology and legal changes have each made it possible for natural child birth or adoption by homosexuals, a group not rendered sterile by nature, it makes every bit of sense for those 'family units' to be incentivised to stay together, benefiting progeny and society as a whole. Imagine the reduction in health costs if marital fidelity became a meaningful social value for homosexuals.
It's heterosexuals who paved the way with selfish pursuits like in vitro, abortion-on-demand and 'no fault' divorce. Family-values types should be thrilled with homosexuals who want to involve themselves in such lifelong commitments. There certainly seem to be fewer and fewer rejecting the cynical, transient viewpoint.
Okay, you would support a law designed to weaken marriage, because it would help catholics (small or large "c") to by pass rules to partake of Holy Communion? Why should the state help Catholics partake of Holy Communion? Why should the state care?
If they're sexually active outside of marriage (real marriage - one man-one woman), then they are living in a state of sin and cannot receive Holy Communion. Period.
Even a Catholic who marries (real marriage - one man-one woman) in a Protestant church is considered by the Catholic Church to be unmarried, living in a state of sin, and not permitted to receive Holy Communion (until the marriage is blessed by the Catholic Church).
"Even a Catholic who marries (real marriage - one man-one woman) in a Protestant church is considered by the Catholic Church to be unmarried, living in a state of sin, and not permitted to receive Holy Communion (until the marriage is blessed by the Catholic Church)."
This is absolutely not correct. I know this to incorrect because my son is married to a non-catholic (not married in the Church). Not only does he go to communion every week, but the priest knows him and his wife (this priest baptized both of his children).
"If they're sexually active outside of marriage (real marriage - one man-one woman), then they are living in a state of sin and cannot receive Holy Communion. Period."
And married folks who use birth control also cannot receive Holy Communion either. Right?
Get real...
Please reread my post. There's no reason to be defensive. Again, here's what I typed:
"Even a Catholic who marries (real marriage - one man-one woman) in a Protestant church is considered by the Catholic Church to be unmarried, living in a state of sin, and not permitted to receive Holy Communion (until the marriage is blessed by the Catholic Church)."
If your son is a Catholic who married in a Protestant church, then he must've had his marriage blessed by the Catholic church, too. Otherwise, he would not be considered married by the Catholic church, and he would not be permitted to receive Holy Communion.
And the reason I know is that that is what our parish priest said directly to me about MY OWN MARRIAGE. So, you see, there's no reason to be offended. I'm referring to my own experience. Others in the Catholic Church have said the same.
So, back to the original question: Could a divorced person enter a civil union and then be eligible to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? The answer still must be: No, not if they're sexually active outside of a marriage blessed by the Catholic Church.
And married folks who use birth control also cannot receive Holy Communion either. Right? Get real...
I never said that. I don't know where the Church stands on that today.
Ping to Coleus. Some questions on this thread about the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.