S2

Phlisophically, I am supportive of marriage remaining a union between a man and a woman. This november, we will have a proposition on our ballot in Michigan regarding that issue; It reads:

One would think this wouldbe a simple slam dunk for me. However I am troubled by the wording, especially "or similar union for any purpose"

I am non-religious and not a christian. I bleive that marriage is the foundation of the family, of the community and ultimately, of society. I believe that strong families strengthen our nation. I believe that children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart.

I recognizing that we all face many challenges in our lives, but also that the best situation is for children to grow up in a loving home with both their mother and father. I believe that marriage between a man and a woman deserves a place of honor in our society.

However, the wording in this proposal seems to create a situation where businesses not only may be allowed to refuse to provide benefits to same sex couples but may by law be prevented from doing so. With that I am not comfortable.

Frankly, in the name of "fairness" and in keeping with my libertarian tendancies. I'd prefer that the government eliminate all financial incentives to married persons and families just because they are married or have children, per se. If a coroporation wants to offer benefits to their employees and spouses/families-- fine-- by whatever definition that company wants to offer. Probate, hospital visitation and the like-- seems like laws for that stuff could be written to include, spouses, children, relations and loved ones-- the onus would be on the involved parties to identify and protect the rights of the "loved ones" regardless if it is an unmarried male/female couple or same sex couple.

I think now is the time to clearly identify just what the public interest issues are with respect to marriage, and then adjust laws as needed to achieve those interests-- the current climate puts the debate in a situation where all kinds of interests are being argued-- Fairness, protection of children and families, gay rights, etc.

I really dont know how I'm going to vote on this yet, at this moment I am tending to vote it down.

solutions

Well, this would be a slam dunk Hell No for me. Mainly because I don't believe recognition of same sex marriage (or civil union) before the law would deminish the value of "hetero marriage" or be bad for children.

Then again I am a liberal Ducth guy living in a monogamous heterosexual relation for 12 years who couldn't care less about getting married (as long as the misses doesn't push me). To me the significance of the relationship lies in the relationship itself, not the name we give it.

The inclusion of the wording "or similar union for any purpose" seems like a very good argument to vote this amendment down.

Hmmm, I was wondering how confident the initiators were to include "civil unions". According to this article there's 52% support for the amendment. Some GOP guy even thinks it is not the only issue "but it is the most important issue, I believe, in America."

It's safe to say I disagree with the gentleman.

__________________
3 monkeys sitting under a coconut tree
discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
there's a strange rumor that can't be true
they say man was descended from our noble race
but the very idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
or her baby to ruin their lives.
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

Cassius

Even if this didn't include the wordage "or similar union", it would be a hell no for me.

Imagine it did say just "marriage" as what it was defining.

Then imagine gays were granted "civil unions" that were supposed to convey equal rights, with regards to estate laws (who gets your property when you die? hopefully your partner, but currently that won't happen unless you have an iron-clad will), insurance laws (can your partner be on your employer's health insurance?), etc etc.

It simply won't work. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of situations where being "married" conveys certain rights. At least SOME of them are bound to be contested or denied, on the grounds that "our hospital policy is to only allow spouses to visit those in critical condition, and by state law you are not married to him, you are just in a civil union. I don't care what the civil union laws say, the marriage law says you can only be married to a woman, therefore you aren't married to this person therefore you can't visit him."

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }