It's Pride month and as such, the push for same sex marriage or civil union has become a major talking point once again. The more popular movement now is the one to allow for civil union for homosexual or heterosexual couples. This move is more popular as the push for same sex marriage simply won't pass in a very conservative country like ours.
So upon reading HB6595, you get the feel that the author is trying to say marriage without saying marriage. So you basically have a created term, "civil union" being defined to be everything that marriage is and everything it comes with but sliding it under our noses as "not marriage". When you look at the terms being used, a civil union is basically a marriage which allows same sex couples to be included.
A civil partnership will grant all benefits and protections to spouses in a marriage. Adoption, child support and custody, property division, etc will also be included. Insurance, health and pensions benefits, labor standard benefits, and privileges, and a marital tax status. In the eyes of the government, you're basically married! A friend of mine asked on Facebook what the difference is between a civil union and marriage. I replied, "Nothing."
Now, I do agree that couples should have visiting rights in hospitals and prisons. On the other hand, I don't think it should be made into law that couples should have visitation rights. It think hospitals should be able to allow the patient to decide who gets to visit them if they were to fall ill, whether it's their spouse, partner, sibling or parent.
But what HB6595 wants to do is to essentially pass a civil union as a marriage. Look at them side by side and there is absolutely nothing different between a marriage and a civil partnership. The only other difference I can see is that a civil partnership requires that the couple is living together in the same house for two years prior.
HB6595 claims to be inclusive but it somehow excludes certain groups from getting a civil partnership. Three people, for example, cannot get a civil partnership. Though it's not mentioned but I would like to ask if this bill would allow for siblings to get a civil partnership. It does not allow for minors to get a civil partnership. No matter how you cut it, a civil partnership is defined a certain way so that certain groups of people are excluded. Just as marriage is defined in a particular way as to exclude certain groups of people from getting married.
HB6595 claims to not infringe on religious liberty but it actually does. While it's true that priests, imams or minister of any religious group or sect cannot be compelled to administer the ceremony, that doesn't actually end there. It does infringe on the public officials' right from declining to officiate a same sex ceremony even if it goes against their own religious beliefs. I understand that there must be separation of church and state but that road goes both ways. While one's religious beliefs should not interfere on matters of the state, the state should also not interfere on matters of one's religious beliefs.
A Civil Partnership law does indeed sound good in that it's more inclusive but sounds good does not always mean "good". I have issues with the bill and I think all the pertinent issues can be solved by means other than introducing a new law. A friend of mine lives with his boyfriend currently and he wants his possessions to go to him in case he passes away. I think that's noble but our laws don't allow for that. Family will always take precedence over partners in our laws.
I think it's about time we revisit this. I'd agree that assets of parents go to their children. However, the adult children (who don't have their own children) should be able to choose where their assets go if they were to die suddenly. Whether they wish to pass it on to a struggling sibling, or a friend, or their life partner.
I think that would be a better way to address this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment