While listening to our local KINK radio station the other day, talking about the Civil Union issue, I was led to research, reading websites, and in writing this. If Civil Unions were recognized, would this include only those of the same sex, or would it also include male and female couples that are not married? I realize there is common law in some states, but not in Oregon or Washington. I also realize that a Civil Union is pretty much considered, same-sex marriage, but have seen the term used with heterolsexuals also.definition, under wikipedia
Would insurance companies be expected to allow civil union spouses to share coverage, or would it be up to the individual company's choice to allow clients to add civil union spouses? Would civil union spouses claim Social Security Benefits if their "Spouse" passes away? What about Income tax filing? Are there other benefits you would get if you were able to be joined in a civil union?
I have found an opinionated version of what someone thinks should happen in "Civil Marriages", and why people, in general, choose to marry or not. Many Oregonians that agree with forming a civil union law will probably agree with SOME of the information here.
Link www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com
The web site's author Leanne Bell has contradicting statements on her page, titled, Common Law, that states; "I am simply concerned with the principle of marriage, and preserving its meaning."
Later she writes; "I believe two consenting adults, including homosexuals, should be allowed to marry if they wish."
With the original definition of marriage and the law in Oregon, and Washington, at least, her statements contradict each other. She only states "concerned", not to "uphold" or "support" the principle. If you are concerned in preserving the meaning of marriage, I don't think you should add homosexuals into the scenerio, when the meaning of marriage is clearly defined. IF the states that use this definition of marriage in the law books, decide to change the definition to include same sex, then it would be fine. I realize this has to do with Measure 36, more than, the civil union issue. Would a Civil Union law, if passed wind up on Marriage ORS Chapter 106, or would it have its own chapter under Title 11?
On the second page titled Co-habitation she defines three reasons why people do not marry, I guess we fall in the first category, where she states;
QUOTE: "they would be married if they could be, they are simply prevented from doing so by outside circumstances and would marry if things changed. They idealize marriage, respect it and admire it, live together because they don't want to be apart but would prefer marriage." END QUOTE
Speaking for my situation;
We do not idealize marriage, as I am sure a number of people do not, and are past admiring it. We would prefer "marriage" solely to adbide by the laws, which in turn allows us to hopefully help sustain our existance. I do think that a written agreement would suffice, such as a "Living Together" contract. There is the Marriage Penalty, but there are benefits that would help us out if we were married and could use some of them right now.
On the third page;
Why Civil Marriages? "We don't just feel married at the end of the ceremony; with the signing of the register we know we are married." In another paragraph; "And that's one of the main reason that there must always be a civil component to any religious wedding in order for it be recognized as legal."
Yes, we understand there are laws to proctect everyone involved. I'm sure there are reasons I am unaware of why Priests/Ministers can't handle the legal end of the deal.
More from her site;
QUOTE: "My own wedding, however, was performed by a wonderful gentleman, a Justice of the Peace who had devoted his retirement to bringing couples together in matrimony." END QUOTE
Definition of a Justice of the Peace: Rom 13:1-6 (NAS) 1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for {rulers} are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
I think she's confused about the religious aspect of a having a Justice of the Peace officiate according to the definition -HELLO! It is what our country has established our Rules and Principles on. Religion!
Doesn't a Justice of the Peace vested by virtue, by whatever state they reside in, also fall under Oath when they get their power to legally perform or has the bible been taken out of the courthouse?
QUOTE:"Civil ceremonies give our marriages an official blessing from the highest authority we have" END QUOTE
Lastly, this individual needs to understand the definition of Blessing, especially if she contradicts thyself by stating;
QUOTE: "It's a wonder people would have it any other way." END QUOTE
Blessings come with Belief.
In respect to the issues at hand "Civil Unions" I do not disagree with putting something in writing that will help protect, sustain and make life easier to live, for all. I hope that it will include, so as not to be bias, and will be helpful to many individuals, opposite sex partners also. What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Do you know of any heterosexual couples that are not married but have come together under a civil union. It seems to me, if there is a difference, it would be under the religious/nonreligious aspect.
I have written to Governor Ted Kulongoski about this and have not received a response. I realize the benefits. What are the drawbacks that would need to be addressed if this were to become law? Health Insurance rates increasing? I think these issues are worth looking into. Resolving some health care concerns would be good. It will not affect me or my spouse at this time because we are in Washington State. The main reason I have decided to make it an important issue to me is because I am unable to get health insurance (an Oregon based company) through my spouse. Written for Selfish Sustainment Purposes. Thank you
