Hawaii’s civil union legislation appeared to be dead in January, when the House didn’t take a vote on the measure and postponed it indefinitely out of fears that Lingle would veto.
The issue was revived Thursday after every other bill introduced this year had been acted on. Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro made the motion to reconsider the bill, although the House fell three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the governor.
The bill was written so that civil unions would be available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to avoid claims of discrimination.
“Equality feels really good,” said Suzanne King, who said Hawaii would recognize her Massachusetts marriage to her partner as a civil union if the bill becomes law. “It allows us to strengthen our family.”
But it is true isn’t it that all civil union laws are applicable to both homosexuals and heterosexuals? There is nothing unusual about Hawaii’s proposal. larry
Civil Unions end up weakening marriage. I hope it does not become law.
No,S&T, I think not. The very reverse. If we can split civil matters from marriage properly so-called – which is a spiritual relationship, not a civil one – we will have more clearly defined what marriage is. this clarity is desperately needed. Larry
Yes, LM, I think so. Just as I said.
In 1999, the French introduced the [i]pact civil de solidarité[/i]. Some 95% of those couples that entered into these civil unions are heterosexual. After only a decade, there are now 2 “pacs” for every 3 marriages…or about 40% of the joinings of couples are civil unions rather than marriages. Civil Unions end up weakening marriage.
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/01/24/civil-unions-and-heterosexual-marriage/
According to [i]Time[/i], there are now legal scholars arguing that marriage should be abolished all together and substituted by civil unions. Gee, perhaps you are right. It would not technically be “weakening” marriage to do away with it all together, I suppose.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
I stand by what I said. I hope that the vote against civil unions. Civil unions end up weakening marriage.
Spoo…I hope that [b]they[/b] vote against civil unions.
S&T, you’ve got it exactly right. Civil unions weaken the norms associated with marriage such as lifetime monogamous commitment. And who stands to lose by the weakening of these norms-women and children. If a society cares about its future it will support through its laws the natural institution of marriage and discourage through its laws weak substitutes for marriage.
But 6, civil partnerships are not a substitute for marriage of any sort. It grants the holders civil benefits, that’s all. Marriage should NOT be about the acquisition of civil benefits of any sort. It is precisely that clarity that is missing. Once remove the civil benefits element, the the couple is free to focus on what marriage should be: The spiritual joining of a man and a woman in a relationship that is greater than the sum of its parts – in contrast to a civil partnership which is precisely the sum of its parts because it a legal arrangement, not a spiritual one.
Mpre people may end up choosing civil rather than spiritual relationships. So much the better. By giving marriage a clearer definition, by excising all those elements that are foreign to marriage – the civil elements – a couple will so much the better know what they may expect from marriage and what they must bring to it. If we separate the sheep from the goats, there will be fewer sheep, but at least we will know that they ARE sheep. The sheep are not dmaged by the separation. Larry