<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Stuart,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From a purely secularist point of view you make some good points. However, you and I both know the reason for "civil unions" is NOT a "life partnership." The purpose is to legitimize an immoral state of living. I think you are way off the mark by equating modern day, same sex, "civil unions" to (what you call) "life partnerships" of biblical times OR monastaries and convents of any time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dianne<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#0000bf face="Comic Sans MS">Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.</FONT></EM></DIV></FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">Ps 42:1</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#0000bf size=1 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#0000bf size=1 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT></EM> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Dianne Dawson <rcdianne@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Apologetics Group <apologetics@gathman.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Mon, August 16, 2010 7:30:31 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Apologetics] First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck … What’s Happening?<BR></FONT><BR>On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dianne Dawson wrote:<BR><BR>> Republican Party, GOProud. And on July 29, although his position had been <BR>> revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of <BR>> homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex 'marriage.'<BR><BR>Actually, civil unions are the reasonable approach for a secular state, and<BR>Rush gets my kudos. First, they are
needed for many non-immoral situations.<BR>For instance, my dad was raised by his mom and her brother (Uncle Chester)<BR>after his dad was killed in WWII. They were not married, and the lack of civil<BR>unions made things much more difficult. Similarly, there are life partners of<BR>the same sex from Biblical times to American literature that were not sexually<BR>immoral. For that matter, many Catholic monks are part of life partner groups,<BR>with brothers have medical decision authority, and property is owned by the<BR>group. A civil union is not required in that case because the institution will<BR>have already prepared the legal documents necessary for the lifetime<BR>commitment.<BR><BR>A civil union is a one stop package with medical decision privilege, common law<BR>inheritance, etc, that comes with your civil marriage license. And if same sex<BR>couples with a civil union are sexually immoral, it doesn't imply that
their<BR>relationship is the same thing as a marriage.<BR><BR>By allowing gay couples to "marry", the term "marriage" is confused<BR>resulting in great harm. A civil union doesn't confuse itself with<BR>"marriage", and while sexually immoral people can use it (just like<BR>for marriage), immorality isn't expected as it is for gay "marriage".<BR><BR>Furthermore, with civil unions legally distinct from marriage, it is<BR>at least possible to have distinctions made for things like adoption.<BR>A marriage is much preferable to a civil union for adoption, even<BR>if the civil union partners are not sexually immoral. (And marriage<BR>partners could easily be equally immoral - perhaps they are into<BR>wife swapping.)<BR><BR>-- <BR> Stuart D. Gathman <<A href="mailto:stuart@bmsi.com" ymailto="mailto:stuart@bmsi.com">stuart@bmsi.com</A>><BR> Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703
591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154<BR>"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for<BR>a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.</DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>