Senate bill for civil unions deserves our support
From the Statesman Journal... I am the mother of three children, one of whom is gay. I am a community volunteer and churchgoer. Constitutional Amendment 36 has me gravely concerned about the direction in which Oregon is headed. I wish to urge legislators to vote in favor of Senate Bill 1000.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that allowing such civil rights would destroy the institution of marriage, confuse the children involved, and lead to the condoning of polygamy. The same arguments were used 40 years ago when the issue of mixed-race couples came into legislation. All one needs to do is exchange terms like "same-sex" with terms like "mixed-race" and they are the same sentiments.
As is obvious, allowing mixed-race couples to legally marry has not caused any of these troubles. People still marry and start families, and the idea that mixed-race couples are the first step toward the destruction of family values is viewed by most as ludicrous.
I implore legislators to please consider the fact that preventing same-sex couples from, at the very least, having legally recognized civil unions will only serve to inflict harm upon Oregon families. SB 1000 is a compromise to protect families, and deserves your support.
Please vote in favor of the bill.
-- Kim Willaman, Independence
This entry was posted
on Sunday, May 08, 2005 at 1:03 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByWhat great harm would befall the straight couples, married-in-a-church or just-cohabitating, if they could look only to the Reciprocal Benefits bill for state support and affirmation?
If the answer is none then . . .
By
Read this:
How Reciprocal Benefits' Are a Joke
By
But, do you find value in the argument that all civil unions, in the interest of equal privileges, should be no better than the Reciprocal Benefits bill?
Attack their unjustifiable privilege rather than merely seeking to also get unjustifiable privileges.
If there is but one law without any reference to gender or one man and one woman, whatever, would I be able to argue that, on equal terms, some privileges could either be scaled up or scaled down? The Reciprocal Benefits legislation and the current marriage laws are just points along that scale, where they could be equal at any point along it. That is, I find equal merit to demanding that all straights must conform to the Reciprocal Benefits bill too . . . as a logical and tactical argument.
I just think that the lower end of the scale is more compatible with liberty more generally.
» Post a Comment