Skip to comments.New Hampshire may legalize civil unions for all — even siblings
Posted on 10/28/2011 6:55:43 AM PDT by martosko
A bill that would repeal New Hampshires 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union even siblings.
New Hampshire Republican state Rep. David Bates, the sponsor of the bill, confirmed this to The Daily Caller.
Asked about the logic behind allowing siblings to enter into civil unions, Bates responded, You have that question backwards. By definition in the bill, a civil union means a contractual agreement that provides reciprocal benefits and obligations to the parties to the agreement.
Talk about pulling back the curtain and letting the sunshine in. This is exactly where this “civil unions” thing was always heading, with children being the final step.
Heard on the Connecticut River:
“Row faster. I hear banjos.”
No surprise as this was pretty much the endgame all along.
“Come in, Berlin”
Please define “civil union”. Can’t people already enter into legal contracts, so what does it change?
the world has gone insane
No doubt this liberaltarian wants to marry his son or daughter or both.
Could this open up a massive loophole for inheritance taxes? I could “marry” my son and it all passes tax free. Like Woody Allen? hmmm
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
It all depends on the state’s definition of “civil union.” If it is all the same “rights and privileges” of marriage under anther name, then yes, this is a huge mistake.
But I agree, any contrivance that seeks to approximate marriage, even distantly, is a Pandora’s box that will eventually be redefined to counterfeit real marriage. The Republicans are painting themselves into a corner here.
the end of the homosexuals is to be able to molest children.
We now have cross dressers then it will be reduce the age of consent which MA has done
The legal age of consent to sex is 12 in most states.
It is just illegal for anyone over 18 to accept it.
(It was 10 or 12 in most states before 1900 without limits, and marriages were legal with just the father’s permission.)
and how the homo’s would love to have sex with 12 year olds.
I'm for this, as long as the word "marriage" is struck from the law at the same time.
I firmly believe the big fat problem is allowing government into the marriage business in the first place. The proper definition of government and the proper definition of marriage are mutually exclusive - i.e. it's none of the government's damn business.
Whenever a marriage is questioned, it should be by asking in what church or spiritual tradition the marriage was created, and that will tell all that needs to be known about the significance of any particular marriage, for those inclined to judge it.
“Oh, it’ll never go there, you’re exaggerating.”
I’d like some sources to your assertion that the age of consent was 10 to 12 in most states before 1900. And by consent, do you mean illicit sex or only marriage?
“In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.”
source New York Times - Oct. 15, 1895 via Wikipedia
(By 1895, “most” was no longer true: 1 at 7, 4 at 10, 4 at 12, 1 at 13.)
But the thing I find contradictory is on the one hand the general statement that those under 18 are incapable of giving consent to sex, and then exceptions are written into the various laws that they can consent to sex, just not with an adult (or person 2 or 4 etc. years older). If the object were to protect children from the consequences of sex or manipulation or intimidation or other problems, it seems to be a very mixed message.
An example is Connecticut:
“Connecticut also recognizes that minors under 13 are released from criminal liability as to consensual sexual activity if (and only if) there is less than a 2-year age difference. For example:
A 12-year-old can consent to any 13-year old.
A 12-year-old cannot consent to any 14-year-old.”
(This should be read that a 13-year-old may seduce any 12-year-old, but a 14-year-old may not. That makes clear the issue is not what happens or any theory of the maturity needed to make informed consent, simply the date-of-birth of who does it.)
It completely belies the whole idea that the law is about a minimuum age one can GIVE consent but that it instead codifies a maximum age one can ACCEPT consent that is perfectly legal to give any number of younger partners out of sight of adults. Once you make exceptions for sex between minors rather than prosecuting one or both, the law is turned on its head and is REALLY saying that an adult is TOO OLD TO CONSENT to sex with a minor, regardless of the rationalizations.
One of the rationalizations is that adults are more experienced in the ways of seduction and manipulation than children of one’s own age. This assumption then makes age a surrogate for unequal sexual experience rather than having to examine the complexities of individual cases. It is also perverse in that those younger people who have been more exposed to sexualization, either through inate curiosity, liberal parenting, or worse, having been abused themselves by adults, are given carte blanche to get “in” ahead of and predate on their more unsophisticated peers.
Many pedophiles report their sexual interest in young people began at a young age themselves. If sexual interest in a 12-year-old is considered pedophilia (and 12-year-olds as a cadre stradle pubescence), then what is the purpose of giving 12-year-old pedophiles a year or two to get started and then expect them to stop just because normal people would? (except that most normal people haven’t even started at that age)
I could go on but it would be interesting to see if anyone who reads this much can argue that current age of consent laws, or even some of your own views, are not irrational?
New Hampshire...it’s sick, and getting sicker. (Hat tip to Bob Grant...)
The leftists flee the crapholes they created and spread it to new states.
I like the guy in the comments who is thinking about entering into a union with his favorite bath towel...ROTF!
“A bill that would repeal New Hampshires 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union even siblings.”
And the battle against our country’s Judeo-Christian values continues.....