Foxfyre wrote:I don't think anything I said suggests they should not be included a provision for civil union. And I am a strong advocate for civil unions for ANYBODY including groups who need to form a legally recognized family unit for purposes of shared insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation, and other benefits married couples enjoy. I have no problem with same sex couples 'coupling' and pledging eternal love and fidelity to each other for that matter. I just want them to pick a different word other than marriage for that and leave the traditional marriage alone.
Once all the various possible (even probable) combinations of civil unions are formed, if they are considered no different than marriage, then before long the institution of marriage will be so diluted and so changed as to be unrecognizable as what it has always been. And that is unacceptable to the large majority of Americans and they should not be required to give up a cherished tradition that is available to anybody.
I advocate a win win solution for all, and that can easily be accommodated and I believe will receive widespread support if everybody will agree to it.
See
Woo v. Lockyer
On March 14, 2005, Judge Richard Kramer, a California Superior Court judge, ruled unconstitutional certain state laws that barred same-sex couples access to marriage. Judge Kramer ruled that the marriage law was subject to, and failed, the strict scrutiny test because it involved a “suspect classification,” namely gender (of one's intended spouse), and the fundamental right to marry.
Judge Kramer dismissed the state’s slippery slope arguments that allowing same-sex couples the right to marry will open the floodgates to any number of marital combinations. Citing case law, the Judge stated, “There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means,” and recognized that “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.” Judge Kramer noted that there could be numerous other important social objectives in limiting adult-child or incestuous marriages.
Like Foxfyre, the State of California argued that California has granted virtually all the rights that marriage entails to same-sex couples (through civil unions), and can thus maintain the "common and traditional understanding of marriage."
Judge Kramer considered the argument and concluded: "California’s enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the state would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital rights that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have. No party has argued the existence of such an inappropriate right, and this court cannot think of one."
Judge Kramer characterized "civil unions" in lieu of marriage for same-sex couples as relegating these couples to a "separate but equal" status. The Judge quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka for the proposition that "separate but equal" treatment of classes of persons "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the "separate but equal" doctrine was seldom equal as applied and relegated black people to the status of second-class citizens.
Homosexuals have long been subjected to hate, moral disapproval, and discrimination by society. When Supreme Court Justice Stevens was a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, he wrote:
"If the age of a pernicious practice were a sufficient reason for its continued acceptance, the constitutional attack on racial discrimination would, of course, have been doomed to failure." AFL-CIO v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 568, n.14 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928 (1973).
Even though it has been a long-standing practice or "tradition" to confine marriage to opposite-sex couples and to discriminate against homosexuals based on moral disapproval, this is not a sufficient reason to continue to exclude homosexuals from the benefits of marriage.
Foxfyre believes the institution of marriage will be diluted (rendered less meaningful?) if it becomes available to just anybody who applies for a license. I don't understand this kind of prejudice.
The right to marry is not a special right reserved to citizens, i.e., heterosexual citizens, who believe they are morally superior or more deserving of the right. The institution of marriage is not akin to a private country club wherein membership to the special club would somehow lose its prestige if just anyone was allowed to join. Access to marriage, unlike a membership in a private club, is a fundamental right.
It doesn't dilute the fundamental right to marry by allowing all citizens, regardless of their sexual preferences or the gender of their intended spouses, to have access to the fundament right via a state-issued marriage license. To argue that your right to marry has been diluted (sullied or devalued or rendered less meaningful?) by allowing others to have that same right is prejudicial, plain and simple. It is like arguing that your right to sit in the front of bus has been sullied and devalued because black people have the same right to sit in the front of the bus.
Prejudice against homosexuals cannot be disguised by placing an iron fist inside a velvet glove. I cannot agree to the deprivation of a fundamental right to a class of persons no matter how sweetly it is packaged in the words of compromise. It is not a win-win situation to argue that homosexuals may have "civil unions" if they will merely agree that the "special" institution of "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals only. The reality of the sweetly offered compromise (the velvet glove) is that the iron fist inside is raised with the sentiment: Take the offer or leave it, but there is no way in hell that we're going to allow you homos to sully our sacred institution of marriage. This is unconstitutional discrimination and a violation of equal protection under the law.
