Gay Marriages and Civil Unions

[Tarren]

As the ruling for civil unions in New Hampshire passed last year, my old roommates were able to have a civil union. I think this has been a wonderful thing and I have spent a lot of time thinking about Civil Unions and Marriage. I know that we are supposed to have a separation of Church and State, and that one of the big issues with gay and lesbian marriages is that "Marriage" is a Church concept and not just a government doctrine, so if we make allow gay marriages then it is crossing into major issues with churches that do not believe that gays or lesbians should be allowed to marry.

What I think would make the most sense is to make all couples that wish to be united now get a Civil Union. They all have the same rights and such no matter what term you call it. The marriage can be held by a minister or a justice of the peace and the institution under which they perform the Civil Union can call the ceremony whatever they want to.

So, Dick and Jane want to get a civil union in a Catholic Church and they can and call their civil union a marriage. It would be a marriage that is a legal Civil Union. Jane and Jane want to get married in a Unitarian Universalist Church and they call it a marriage as well. Their marriage is a legal Civil Union as well. Dick and Mike get a handfasting at a pagan gathering. Their handfasting is a Civil Union, and so on.

This makes everything equal and let's the Churches decide and keep their own doctrines. Am I being too simplistic or what is wrong with my idea that someone in Congress or something has not said "Hey, what if we did this?"

[sabelmouse]

The Tyranny of the Majority - Should Gay Marriage Even be on the Ballot?

A year ago, the voting public of California favored Proposition 8 and banned gay marriage. Last night, Maine's citizens voted on Question 1 and also chose to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Is it right that gay marriage, and gay rights as a whole, should be put up for public vote, or, like some have suggested, does it go against what real American democracy is all about?

This Year's Gay Marriage Battle
For a time, Maine looked as though it would be the first state to approve gay marriage at the ballot, but, ultimately, the result did not go in favor of LGBTs with a 53 percent majority voting to take away same-sex marriage rights, making Maine the 31st state to reject gay marriages at the ballot.

But other gay rights legislation did succeed yesterday. Kalamazoo's gay rights ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity in housing and employment won by a clear majority of 65 percent of the vote. The final figure on Washington's domestic partnership law isn't in yet, but, at last check, a majority of 51 percent favored the legislation.

Obviously, gay rights can win at the ballot, but, at this moment in time, gay marriage can not. A question has been brought into focus today though, that I know many blog readers at Care2 have been asking for a long time.

Should Gay Rights be Decided by a Majority Vote at All?
Care2's very own Deepak Chopra, renowned author on subjects of spiritual and physical health, wrote a piece for the Huffington post last year, prior to Prop 8's eventual win, in which he expressed his dismay at California putting gay marriage on the ballot, calling this kind of behavior "moral hazard". In the piece, he said (emphasis mine):

"Popular democracy sorely tests the bond of trust. Therefore, we have certain bodies, such as courts and the Senate, where the tide of popular sentiment can be checked. In California, the system of ballot initiatives for changing the state constitution is pure democracy at work, without restraint of any kind. If half the citizenry favor a change, their whims override all checks and balances. Prop 8 is the latest in a long line of disturbing, misguided initiatives that amount to a roll of the dice. Will the majority decide to stamp on a newly fledged right of a gay minority? The contest is too close to call, but as an outsider who hopes that California voters will say no to Prop 8, they should think seriously about moral hazard and the trap it poses."

And now, of course, we have Maine's Question 1, which proponents of the gay marriage ban are touting as a "moral" victory because, even in a so-called liberal state such as Maine, gay marriage did not prevail. There can be no moral victory in denying a person their rights, and nor can a moral victory be achieved when opponents obscure the truth in order to win.

It's my opinion that gay marriage should not be put on the ballot in any state. Nor should civil rights such as the freedom to not be discriminated against at work or to have equal access to spousal health care benefits. America has a separation of powers, a system of checks and balances. Where is the balance of power when it comes to a "people's veto" or a bias motivated majority?

The court system and legislature exist to protect the minority from the majority. Consider that of the 29 states which have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, the majority of those bans were secured by enacting a referendum through public petition alone.

It is often claimed that gay rights activists are trying to push their "radical gay agenda", but, in truth, what we saw in Maine yesterday, and in California last year, was a vocal group of a voting majority, not a public majority, circumventing legislature and imposing their will on state law.

And so, with no federal action to stop them, the oppressive element of the voting majority can keep pushing their agenda that argues that gay marriage rights, and gay rights as a whole, aren't civil rights.

But tell that to the gay couple from New York who were thrown out of a cab for simply hugging, or to the gay rights activists who are now so concerned by what happened in Maine that they are suggesting America has become a land where gay apartheid is flourishing.

And to those who say that domestic/civil partnerships are enough and that we should leave it at that, I think this couple from New Jersey's newest same-sex marriage advertisement would disagree


http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/tyranny-of-the-majori...

[Kenny]

Or better yet we ignore the bigots and legalize gay marriage. I'm tired of this "separate but equal" bullshit.

[Michael Stokes]

My opinion on gay marriage is to legalize it so that homosexuals may have a wedding ceremony as they wish, as long as it does not infringe on a church's choice to hold it or not; there are many churches that would be proud to, but at the same time, there are some that hold what they believe is their moral ground.

[Tova Crossler Ernström]

In what states is gay marriage banned?

It just seems kind of stone age-ish to me... Considering how USA claims to be "the land of freedom and equal rights".