Posted on 10/19/2006 6:53:02 AM PDT by slowhand520
Homosexuals have all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. They are protected under the Constitution and are afforded equal protection under the laws. They are free to marry anyone they please as long as it is not a polygamous marriage, it is not an incestuous marriage and as long as they marry a human being who is a member of the opposite sex.
What you are proposing is a special right of a homosexual to make a person of the same sex his marriage partner. And these "Civil Unions" are just a way to get people who would otherwise not be eligible for employment benefits or social security benefits on the dole. Why can't I list my adult daughter (who is not eligible for health care) as my Civil Partner? If I have a friend who lives in my house and does not have health insurance, why can't I list him as my domestic partner and put him on my insurance? If I'm collecting a pension that would go to my wife when I die, but I'm not married, should I be able to claim my 18 year old nephew as my "domestic partner" and then allow him to collect my pension for the next 60 years?
These are benefits that are available to legal spouses and not friends or aquantances or distant relatives. If we accept the "domestic partner" idea or the "civil union" idea as equal to marriage, we will destroy the institution of marriage as there will be no incentive to marry and thus we will have an entire generation of bastardized children who ultimately will find a way to burden themselves upon society by jumping though all these hoops.
So, in answer to you question, no there should be no such institution as a "Civil Union". If you don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex, or if you refuse to marry then you should receive none of the benefits of marriage.
Period.
I said "certain" benefits, and most of these already exist without any legislation. A person should be able to name anyone as their heirs in wills (as far as I know this is the case now). A person can give any person they wish any type of specific, general or medical power of attorney. A person can name anyone they want as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Medical insurance coverage should be left at the discretion of the insurance company (though many states have specific regulations, as is their right). I believe that the present Social Security system is totally screwed up and that legislation needs to be enacted that entitles the recipient the right to grant at least the amount they paid into the system to their own estate in the event that they die before this amount of money is repaid (truthfully, I think that it should be completely privatized like 401k plans are).
I do not think that there should be "civil unions" and I view most arguments in favor of them as absurd. The only legitimate one I can think of is in regards to hospital and prison visitation rights, if a homosexual wants to list their homosexual sex-partner as their "whatever" to visit them in a hospital or in prison, I can think of no reason why this should not be allowed.
Just because someone is having illegitimate and dangerous sex with someone does not make their relationship any more legitmate than that of a friend or acquaintance. I believe a patient should have a right to have anyone they want visit them, but I certainly don't think that just because someone exchanges bodily fluids with another person in a particularly disgusting and often dangerous way, gives that person any more rights than any other person.
What homosexual activists are trying to do is to gain special rights based upon the fact that they would prefer to have sex with people who are of the same gender than with people of the opposite gender. Sexual preference should not be the basis of any civil right any more than food preferences or movie preferences or clothing preferences.
Okay, I agree. I think in terms of hospital and prison visitation, if there are restrictions where visitation would normally be limited to a spouse, that ANY PERSON should be entitled to designate ANY ONE PERSON they wish to be that visitor.
bump
Marriage is an 6,000+ year institution based on CONTRACT LAW.
To Redefine Marriage allows ALL words to be REDEFINED!
LAW no longer means LAW!
Of course gays should be "allowed to marry". It should not be RECOGNIZED by the government.
I cringe to think that any freedom and Liberty loving American would actually want to make it ILLEGAL for a pair of homosexuals to have their own private ceremony, exchange vows, have a reception and take a honeymoon.
If you're not participating or forced to attend, what do you care?
You are right......he might as well pack up and quit. This guy is on all sides of everything. Has no true belief on any subject. He is finished!
He is a former "prisoner of war" and guess he thinks he can get by with anything. I think he may have a screw loose!
"If you're not participating or forced to attend, what do you care?"
I care that the institution of marriage and the foundation of society is not rendered meaningless by a bunch of perverts. Does that answer your question?
He is not going anywehre as fast as the Democrat Party media would like.
The problem is that this argument was tried with the anti-miscegenation statutes (blacks have the same rights as whites to marry, as long as it is someone of the same race), and was rejected.
Blacks don't wake up and say, "I think I'll go to a psych and help me change my race."
Any court would see the distinction between a chosen behavior and a clearly, irefutably inherent trait.
There's a pretty good chance that homosexuals don't choose their orientation. They definately don't choose to be gay.
Any court would see the distinction between a chosen behavior and a clearly, irefutably inherent trait.
I doubt it. Unfortunately, at least in academia, the above position seems to be the prevailing opinion. It's only a matter of time until the law students indoctrinated into that viewpoint will be sitting on the bench.
The "maverick" McCain is off the reservation and heading over a cliff. Bye, Bye.
Past his expiration date, clearly.
Straw man.
"At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA "
Notice that the 14th amendment was not enacted to ensure that people can be given special protection because of the manner in which they engage in sex.
If homosexuality is given protected status under the 14th amendment, then incest, polygamy and bestiality and all other manner of sexual pervesion would necessarily have to be given that same protected status.
The fact remains that any white person or black person is free to marry any other person so long as that person is of legal age and of the opposite sex and not of the immediate family and not to additional people.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage. V. Gene Robinson was married in holy matrimony even though he had a sexual preference for men. He was not denied the right to marry and was not denied any of the priviledges that accompany that bond. But he chose to break that bond and follow his flesh. He destroyed his own marriage and if homosexuality is legitimized or given constitutional protection then the whole institution of marriage will be rendered meaningless.
I do hope you are never appointed to an appellate postition with any court.
Sorry folks. Im far from being a McCain fan but what I heard him say on HardBall was gay marriage should be allowed (as it is already).
He also said he's not for legal gay marriage
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.