Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because if you look the vote in California wasn't just conservative obviously,. There are alot of people that are not religious who just flat against it.When the Gays come out with a civil union bill we will see but its probably going to have to exclude marriage specifically or people will just say it a step to marriage.Why because politically that is the history they have seen with such issues.Roight now the in your face gay actions also work aginst them because of history.JMHO
Although I do not understand it if two people are happy then great be together. I don't see a problem with marriage for two people who love each other, oh and I am a Conservative Republican. So next time you (not OP) want to try and put a stereotype on Republicans think again.
Now, to answer your question about civil unions: which benefits are offered to married heterosexual couples that aren't offered to others?
In Alaska, I don't know. I just spent a few minutes searching for an answer to your question, but I can't find anything.
I do think there's symbolic value to the government recognizing long-term relationships in some form. When there's nothing available for same-sex couples, to me, the state is basically saying that it believes those relationships have no value and aren't worth recognizing.
Oh yes, I'm confident that we do agree about most of what we're saying, but I'm not sure if the denial is primarily based on religion. I think there's a very large percentage of people who voted against same-sex marriage and/or civil unions because they simply don't like the idea of homosexuality. Perhaps more than a vote on same-sex unions, these ballot initiatives are essentially referenda on whether or not the voters think that homosexual attractions are acceptable or not.
Religion, or "Ick", neither are solid reasons for laws.
Because if you look the vote in California wasn't just conservative obviously,. There are alot of people that are not religious who just flat against it.When the Gays come out with a civil union bill we will see but its probably going to have to exclude marriage specifically or people will just say it a step to marriage.Why because politically that is the history they have seen with such issues.Roight now the in your face gay actions also work aginst them because of history.JMHO
On the other hand, after California eliminated same-sex marriage rights, five other states made it legal: Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine.
Although I do not understand it if two people are happy then great be together. I don't see a problem with marriage for two people who love each other, oh and I am a Conservative Republican. So next time you (not OP) want to try and put a stereotype on Republicans think again.
Well, every poll taken shows that Republicans are MUCH more likely to be against same-sex marriage and civil unions than Democrats, so I don't think he was out of line in asking the question the way he did.
I agree, but sometimes progress has to come in stages. Civil unions would be better than nothing, but unfortunately, many have an all-or-nothing mentality - on both sides of this issue.
Please let me ask your opinion as a gay person: if gay individuals were granted all the rights afforded to heterosexuals when the are wed before a justice, would the homosexual community be content if the joining of loved ones were still labeled a civil union (albeit with ALL rights)?
OR: If the the joining of loved ones (in this case hetero & homosexuals) before a justice was called a civil union and ANYONE entering a civil union were afforded all the same legal rights, would that be more tolerable? (In other words, using the word 'marriage' only when the joining was conducted in a house of worship.)
Again, I tilt conservative, but have several homosexual acquaintances who are in long term, committed relationships. One couple has a child and her two daddys are among some of the best parents I have ever met. It is terrible to think that if God forbid something happened to one of them, the other could not speak for his loved one. I support same sex unions/civil unions with full spousal rights.
I was raised in a household were my family thought homosexuality was terrible, were appalled with me when I befriended gay individuals, and who are staunchly anti-gay rights. They aren't Bible thumpers by any means, but were brought up in very devout Catholic households. I can understand where people such as my folks are coming from when they say No to gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I believe they are right.
On the other hand, after California eliminated same-sex marriage rights, five other states made it legal: Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine.
And amazingly enough, when I am in VT I don't see what the fearmongers envision: Homosexual public displays of affection, gay recruitment and any other silliness. Bob and Tom aren't skipping along holding hands, Sue and Jane aren't discussing what they can do with that zucchini at the farmers market.
The town I own property in is a very quaint, picture book New England town with lots of old homes, and a village green lined with cute little shops, inns and churches. The innkeepers have seen an increase in business as more homosexual couples book civil union ceremonies and receptions and rent out rooms. In turn, these happy couples, their friends and families pour more tourism dollars into the area. It's a win-win.
Please let me ask your opinion as a gay person: if gay individuals were granted all the rights afforded to heterosexuals when the are wed before a justice, would the homosexual community be content if the joining of loved ones were still labeled a civil union (albeit with ALL rights)?
OR: If the the joining of loved ones (in this case hetero & homosexuals) before a justice was called a civil union and ANYONE entering a civil union were afforded all the same legal rights, would that be more tolerable? (In other words, using the word 'marriage' only when the joining was conducted in a house of worship.)
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I can't speak for all homosexual people. I'm sure the opinions would vary quite a bit depending on exactly who you ask.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
