I think that calling same-sex couples “marriages” does a heck of a lot more damage to society than does calling them “civil unions.” At least the word “marriage” would still mean something.
Thqt being said, I can’t countenance “civil unions” for same-sex couples because it gives the special rights just because they do things in the bedroom that Judeo-Christian society has deemed immoral for millennia. And even if heterosexual couples could also apply for a civil-union license, it would still give society’s imprimatur to sodomites qua
sodomites and fornicators qua fornicators.
While I can empathize with someone with a loved one in the hospital whom he’s not allowed to visit, or who is unable to assign death benefits to a loved one, I think these problems can be solved through a simple power-of-attorney and a will. But if there are rights that cannot be provided contractually, I think that it would be fair if we created a legal status for two people who live under the same roof and wish to enter into a contractual arrangement that covered all these things. But here’s the most important part: in order not to give special rights to people just because they are involved in an immoral sexual relationship, I think that the “cohabitation partnerships” (or whatever we call them) should be available not just to two homosexuals who live together or to live-in heterosexual couples who don’t want to marry, but also to elderly sisters who live in the same home or a widower and his elderly mother or other non-sexual couples who wish to enter into these partnerships. That way, we wouldn’t be giving special rights to gays merely because of their immorality; we would be giving them the same rights afforded to other couples who live under the same roof irrespective of whether they have a sexual relationship.
If gays in favor of same-sex marriage really cared only about having the right to visit their lover at the hospital, etc., they would agree to this compromise that would give themmthe rights they seek without forcing the majority to sanction what they do in their bedrooms. But if what the gay lobby is after is the destruction of the institution of marriage and an iconoclastic rupture with Judeo-Christian teaching on morality, then they’ll run away from this like a vampire from a cross.
That's okay by me. But I'd prefer it to be less formalized, just make it easier/more streamlined to contract property rights and so on. I'm no legal expert but I can't think of any right that you couldn't contract for.
At least not any right they should have, we certainly don't need to be paying for spousal or survivor benefits to the partners of gay public employees.
But if it's a civil union with all the privileges of marriage, available only to gay lovers.....well I said the other day that semantics does matter but...."marriage"...just a word, "civil union", 2 words.
That's why I don't understand why they aren't happy with "civil unions" and demand "marriage". 2 men can't "marry" each other anymore than a teenage boy can marry his dad's Playboy collection.
But if what the gay lobby is after is the destruction of the institution of marriage
I forget where I heard this but some prominent gay activist IIRC said he'd prefer to just abolish marriage. He may have used the term "heteronormative" but as long as it exists gays should have it too. I get the sense that they don't all agree.
I know who wants it the most, divorce lawyers. Cha-ching.