Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Most of the talk about compromising on the issue of same-sex marriage revolves around legalizing civil unions for homosexual partners as an alternative to same-sex marriage. This is a compromise that should be avoided if you value the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.

Some are saying that
the once Republican,
now Independent
Charlie Crist will say
anything to get elected.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for Senate running against Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek as an Independent after bowing out of the Republican primary after facing defeat, has recently come out clarifying his support for gay rights, including support of civil unions and same-sex adoption.

On the other hand, Crist underscored his opposition to same-sex marriage. To support same-sex civil unions in the place of same-sex marriage is a losing stance to take, historically speaking and here's why.

Currently, five states and the District of Columbia recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Three of these states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire – all started with civil unions for same-sex couples.

On July 1st, 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples which provided the same rights and status as marriage. Nine years later, when Vermont would legalize same-sex marriage in the spring of 2009, Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, praised Vermont for its ‘important steps forward’.

“Vermont opened an important back door,” she said, referring to the civil unions. “Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage.”

In neighboring New Hampshire, there is another same-sex-civil unions-to-same-sex-marriage pattern. In 2007, the New Hampshire House and Senate passed its civil unions bill, which provided the same rights and status of marriage. Governor Lynch said he supported same-sex civil unions because it was a matter of “conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination,” and the new law became effective January 1, 2008.

It would be only two short years before New Hampshire state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and on January 1, 2010, the law took effect. Per the same-sex marriage law, couples who entered into civil unions will see those civil unions legally designated and recorded as a marriage on January 1, 2011 if they don’t manually apply for a marriage license before then.

Gov. Lynch changed his
stance on same-sex
civil unions, too: That
they weren't enough. 
Mr. Lynch, who is up for re-election this year, defended his flip flop on the issue saying that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.” He would go on to repeat his reasoning for supporting same-sex civil unions and apply it to same-sex marriage:

“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”

Isn’t that why the homosexual activists pushed for civil unions in 2007? New Hampshire State Senator Fenton Groen’s comments on the same-sex marriage law couldn’t be any more accurate: "The pro-gay marriage people have been very disingenuous. They told us two years ago that if civil unions were passed, that would completely satisfy them. Within two years, they have completely changed their minds."

Well, what did one of New Hampshire’s gay residents, Rob Davis, who entered into a civil union in 2008 with his partner Dean Davis, say about the civil unions? "It didn't go far enough."

In Connecticut the situation was very similar. Legalized in 2005, civil unions for same-sex couples provided for the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. By doing this, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to adopt civil unions.

Connecticut, like its neighbor to the north, brought up legislation for same-sex marriage only two short years after implementing civil unions. It passed the House Judiciary committee that year and although Governor Jodi Rell promised to veto the legislation because she felt that civil unions for same-sex couples “covered the concerns that had been raised,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut guaranteed same-sex marriage rights the following year in 2008.

So in this case the court intervened to convert civil unions into marriage. Was it a surprise? Not for lesbian Anne Stanback, president of the Love Makes a Family consortium. In 2003, she was advocating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples where she argued: “Would passage of such a bill be an important step forward? Absolutely. Would it be the end of our fight? Absolutely not!”

Brian Brown, President of the
National Organization for Marriage.
Brian Brown, who once worked with the Family Institute of Connecticut and is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage, put it this way: "Some legislators thought civil unions was a way out," he said. "They falsely think it is some kind of compromise, but the proponents have made clear that civil unions is only a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage."

That’s exactly right, Brian, and it can be seen in New Jersey, too. In fact, had Republican Chris Christie lost in his election bid to replace Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey, gay marriage would be legal there today and would likely be legal in New York State, too.

New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex couples back in 2006, which made the Garden State the third U.S. state to offer such civil unions. Saundra Toby-Heath and her partner were among the seven gay couples who sued the State of New Jersey to redefine marriage. With the adoption of civil unions in 2006, Saundra said "We acknowledge this is a huge step forward."

According to an Associated Press news article from December 15, 2006, gay rights groups also shared her sentiment, saying that not calling the civil unions “marriage” created a different and inferior institution. They did, however, welcome the civil unions as a step towards full same-sex marriage.

Then in 2008 a commission full of gay rights advocates was set up to examine civil unions in New Jersey. You know what they concluded? That the civil union law created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples.

According to a statement on one of New Jersey’s largest gay rights organizations, Garden State Equality, the goal is same-sex marriage: “Garden State Equality is fighting for real marriage equality and will not settle for civil unions, which are separate, unequal and do not consistently work to protect same-sex couples in the real world. But civil unions are a notable step forward.”

New Jersey’s state legislature voted against same-sex marriage late last year after Chris Christie was elected and lawmakers failed to rush the same-sex marriage bill to outgoing Governor Corzine’s desk in a midst of scheming that gave democratic process in New Jersey a bad stink. That was luck. Before the election, the gay marriage bill was on track for passage and approval by the governor.

Political winds at the time allowed a republican to be elected governor of one of America’s bluest states. Had Corzine been re-elected, he would have fulfilled his promised to sign same-sex marriage legislation into law in early 2010.

Civil unions have historically
not been satisfactory for
same-sex couples and have
paved the way to eventual
same-sex marriage. 
So this point here is that the homosexuals and their activists pushing the homosexual agenda are not up for compromising. Their goal is same-sex marriage; gender-neutral marriage in every state across the Nation.

Legalizing civil unions is not a good strategy because a few years later, they will use that as the framework as a steppingstone to pushing for same-sex marriage. In their own words it is clear. Barbara Cox, associate dean at California Western School of Law and co-chair of the national Freedom to Marry Organization:

“But we aren’t going to get marriage until we get civil unions. You know, the people that I have talked to in Vermont, the people who are doing this nationwide, keep saying we need to do that [civil unions] as an important first step. But what I believe that what we have to do as a community is that each one of us has to
walk out of here tonight saying. ‘This is something that I can do to make a step forward.’”

Don’t allow same-sex civil unions. Supporting same-sex civil unions is the same as supporting same-sex marriage. If you value marriage between a man and a woman you must oppose any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples that mirrors or mocks marriage.


Anonymous said...

Gerald Lynn
Then Mark Dayton supports sexual pervert/freaks marriage, they are all the same, just different sexual actions!
In five to ten years one or more of the other types will be trying for the same rights!
I am not trying to be mean just stating th...e facts.

[SEXUAL PERVERT-A condition in which the sexual instinct is expressed in ways that are socially prohibited or unacceptable or are biologically undesirable]

[FREAK- a person with something unusual about their appearance or BEHAVIOR].

NECROPHILIA{Erotic attraction to or sexual contract with corpses}
ZOOPHILIA{Practice of sex between humans and animals}
HOMOSEXUAL{Practice of sex between same gender}
PEDOPHILIA{Person who rapes children}
RAPIST{Violent sexual desires}
Not one is any better or worse than the other.

Anonymous said...

The next step is to advocate for gays to be allowed to adopt children. Studies have shown that children raised in this environment face numerous challenges as adults. We must keep the gays from winning any more battles, for the children's sake...

Juston said...

Perhaps it would do well for someone to investigate the original purpose for government recognized marriage and incentives and then share why (or why not) same-sex relations do not qualify.

JT said...

For the two "anonymous" comments: Would anonymous poster number 2 please list the studies that show the challenges that children raised by gays face? I'm interested in them because most recognized experts state that same sex partners who raise children are too new a social experiment for studies to be considered valid. So please, tell me about these studies.

For anonymous poster 1, you stated that not one is any better or worse than the other. WRONG! For the record, the biggest difference between homosexuality and all the others you list, the thing that makes a HUGE difference in the eyes of the law, is the issue of legal consent. There is no oportunity for legal consent to any of the other "behaviors" you list. It's the main reason the other items are so obviously socially reprehensible. Rapists and pedophiles destroy lives by their actions, mentally harming their victims. But that's something that people like you fail to recognize.

stinky said...

Way back, I mean way-way-way back, when the first slave owners decided to have one or two in the house, other masters got upset. They knew that soon, their slaves would be asking not for the house position but for the keys to the house! And freedom! Horrors... This should never have happened. And that is why the Roman empire fell. (Uhm, no, not really.) Hey, Louie-Louie, do you get my point? If civil unions are a "back door" to marriage equality, then yes, why don't we simply start with basic equality?!

Anonymous said...

But Louis -- you and the rest of your NOMbie friends said that civil unions were acceptable for our GLBT fellow citizens. Are you now reneging even on that. Honestly, I think you should be ashamed of yourselves for the lies you are willing to tell while trying to pretty up your bigotry.

Bless your heart, Louis,

Post a Comment


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition