Same-sex civil unions legislation in Hawaii

[quiet52]

honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009901240347

The state House is expected to pass this bill, sad to say.

 

[absolutebelieve]

Good for them!
Also, so long as it isn’t “marriage”, what do you care, and what business is it of yours, unless you don’t like to see homosexuals happy by any standard?

 

[Arclight]

Good for them!
Also, so long as it isn’t “marriage”, what do you care, and what business is it of yours, unless you don’t like to see homosexuals happy by any standard?

Agree. Civil marriage is nothing more than a default set of property and related rights. Civil unions are the equivalent.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t care what the state does. The Church and everyone else does not have to label it marriage. If you come to my place for the night there waving the banner of a same sex marriage I will require you to stay in separate rooms or not stay at all. And I will never be forced to use the term marriage for something I don’t approve of.

 

[Arclight]

I don’t care what the state does. The Church and everyone else does not have to label it marriage. If you come to my place for the night there waving the banner of a same sex marriage I will require you to stay in separate rooms or not stay at all. And I will never be forced to use the term marriage for something I don’t approve of.

No one is going to “force” you to say anything or accommodate your guests as you please.

Civil marriage is no more or less than a set of legal obligations. There’s nothing “magic” about the term. If you are really that offended about how gays order their affairs, you should demand that they be stripped of all the legal rights they already have in this area.

 

[fix]

The Church, as usual, is right:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage…

 

[Arclight]

The Church, as usual, is right:

“Contentious objection”. What does that mean in this context? How do you plan on objecting to matters that are unlikely to affect you directly?

What do you propose doing about “[l]egal recognition of homosexual unions [that] would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage” in any instance where the law already permits contracted-for legal unions that are nearly the equivalent of civil marriage? Are you planning on not recognizing that two gays own property in joint tenancy (that is, with survivorship rights) or that two gays have made each other beneficiaries of life insurance policies?

Seems to me you’re going to be backed into a serious corner here. Either you propose suppressing all gay civil rights that mimic those of civil marriage or you take the constitutionally indefensible position of picking and choosing.

 

[fix]

“Contentious objection”. What does that mean in this context?

Conscientious objection is how it is stated. It means just what is says. One takes a position, from conscience, that states clearly they object to the government acting as they are in this case.

The document says:

Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.

How do you plan on objecting to matters that are unlikely to affect you directly?

There are many ways depending on the circumstance. That may include writing to one’s representative, voting against such measures, and much else.

What do you propose doing about “[l]egal recognition of homosexual unions [that] would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage” in any instance where the law already permits contracted-for legal unions that are nearly the equivalent of civil marriage? Are you planning on not recognizing that two gays own property in joint tenancy (that is, with survivorship rights) or that two gays have made each other beneficiaries of life insurance policies?

The point is there are ways to secure those items without creating so-called unions.

Seems to me you’re going to be backed into a serious corner here. Either you propose suppressing all gay civil rights that mimic those of civil marriage or you take the constitutionally indefensible position of picking and choosing.

“Gays” have the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Arclight]

Conscientious objection is how it is stated. It means just what is says. One takes a position, from conscience, that states clearly they object to the government acting as they are in this case.
…

There are many ways depending on the circumstance. That may include writing to one’s representative, voting against such measures, and much else.

Excellent ways of registering dissent. I was wondering about CO in different sense, as in civil disobedience.

The point is there are ways to secure those items without creating so-called unions. …

“Gays” have the same rights as everyone else.

That’s my point. Right now, they can secure most of the same rights as those in a civil marriage. The problem is that, from a civil rights perspective, allowing most but not all rights is way too close to the old “separate but equal” discrimination that the USSC found to be inherently unjust.

A lot of the argument on CAF is merely preaching to the choir, but these are legitimate, and sophisticated arguments that your opponents will mount and which should be addressed if you want to carry your point in the real world.

 

[fix]

That’s my point. Right now, they can secure most of the same rights as those in a civil marriage. The problem is that, from a civil rights perspective, allowing most but not all rights is way too close to the old “separate but equal” discrimination that the USSC found to be inherently unjust.

A lot of the argument on CAF is merely preaching to the choir, but these are legitimate, and sophisticated arguments that your opponents will mount and which should be addressed if you want to carry your point in the real world.

Race is not equal to behavior. There will always be legal arguments, legitimate or not, but the foundation of the law should be reason.

I do not claim to be any legal expert but I wonder when reading these points if people think judges, pols, and lawyers get the law handed down on a golden tablet as if common sense, reason, and personal conscience do not play any central role.

This is why the I think the Vatican document mentions conscientious objection.

 

[Arclight]

Race is not equal to behavior. There will always be legal arguments, legitimate or not, but the foundation of the law should be reason.

I do not claim to be any legal expert but I wonder when reading these points if people think judges, pols, and lawyers get the law handed down on a golden tablet as if common sense, reason, and personal conscience do not play any central role.

This is why the I think the Vatican document mentions conscientious objection.

Race is not equal to behavior, true, I’m making an analogy that will carry a lot of weight in places where these matters will be decided.

In the real world sense, human reason allows a range of behavior. The law, really, is just a set of social policies involving a lot of compromise set somewhere along that continuum of reasonable behavior. Lawmakers, lawyers and judges don’t view the law as something handed down on golden tablets, social policies are always moving somewhere along that continuum. Personally, I’d like to see a really persuasive argument against gay marriage that doesn’t involve citing religious tenants.

 

[fix]

Race is not equal to behavior, true, I’m making an analogy that will carry a lot of weight in places where these matters will be decided.

In the real world sense, human reason allows a range of behavior. The law, really, is just a set of social policies involving a lot of compromise set somewhere along that continuum of reasonable behavior. Lawmakers, lawyers and judges don’t view the law as something handed down on golden tablets, social policies are always moving somewhere along that continuum. Personally, I’d like to see a really persuasive argument against gay marriage that doesn’t involve citing religious tenants.

Why should religion be excluded? Can those arguments not be true or reasonable?

Non religious people can know the truth of the matter as well.

The problem is that the truth will only be accepted to the degree one is open to accepting it. No argument, no matter how well constructed or how secular is enough to convince someone who refuses to be convinced. Added to this is the problem of moral relativism which blankets this culture.

 

[Arclight]

Why should religion be excluded? Can those arguments not be true or reasonable?

Non religious people can know the truth of the matter as well.

The problem is that the truth will only be accepted to the degree one is open to accepting it. No argument, no matter how well constructed or how secular is enough to convince someone who refuses to be convinced. Added to this is the problem of moral relativism which blankets this culture.

I’m talking about civil law only. “Truth” is an amorphous concept. It is going to change. That said, well constructed arguments do win battles, convince judges, convince legislators, change the way things are done, it happens all the time, in matters big and small. But assuming that there’s one and only one truth in the the realm of civil law is not a good way of getting your way.

 

[fix]

I’m talking about civil law only. “Truth” is an amorphous concept. It is going to change. That said, well constructed arguments do win battles, convince judges, convince legislators, change the way things are done, it happens all the time, in matters big and small. But assuming that there’s one and only one truth in the the realm of civil law is not a good way of getting your way.

I am not saying there is only one way to craft a civil law. I am saying that we can have just and unjust civil laws. That presupposes we understand what just really means in this context.

Battles can be one by argument, but that is not true in each instance. We have today laws that allow abortion. Plenty of good arguments have been made and many refuse to accept them including judges and pols.

It is not only rationality that comes into play but a properly formed conscience, an open heart, and dare I say grace.

 

[Arclight]

I am not saying there is only one way to craft a civil law. I am saying that we can have just and unjust civil laws. That presupposes we understand what just really means in this context.

Battles can be one by argument, but that is not true in each instance. We have today laws that allow abortion. Plenty of good arguments have been made and many refuse to accept them including judges and pols.

It is not only rationality that comes into play but a properly formed conscience, an open heart, and dare I say grace.

I can’t disagree with you.