Legal options for seniors already exist

The latest attempt to gain support for civil-union legislation is to misdirect the public into thinking this going to provide a great benefit to senior citizens:

The question of whether to legalize civil unions in Illinois has focused largely on same-sex couples, but opposite-sex senior citizen couples actually stand to gain the most, says state Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago….

Harris’ House Bill 1826 would let couples opt for civil unions, rather than marriage. Each partner in a civil union would have legal protections and obligations that already are available to married people. For example, one partner could make crucial decisions, such as those involving medical care, on behalf of the other.

Guess what? They can already do that. It’s called a Health Care Power of Attorney in Illinois (it’s also known as a “Medical Power of Attorney” elsewhere). Call me cynical, but it looks to me like the proponents of this bill know that it’s sole purpose is getting same-sex unions recognized in Illinois, but are trying to divert criticism by finding dubious other “benefits” to the bill.

8 thoughts on “Legal options for seniors already exist”

  1. we all know this isn’t about senior citizens. It’s about the “gay” agenda.
    I note that they will presumably still not be subject to the federal “marriage penalty tax”.
    As Americans we are taught to live and let live, “be tolerant” and give others privacy in their homes, all good things. But the militant “gays” have broken the rules. They want to shove their “lifestyle” down our throats. Well, it’s time to start fighting back. What they do may be their business, but we don’t have to acknowledge that it’s the same as “traditional” marriage. It’s NOT.

  2. A Health Care Power of Attorney is not the same as marriage or ‘civil union’ when it comes to medical issues. Not everyone recognizes or accepts Powers of Attorney.

  3. Mr. Mouse:

    Your “traditional” marriage is nothing but a state granted benefit. You can get “married” in any church you like, but it means nothing until the state certifies it. I say – go for the civil unions and let any two consenting adults enter into them. For those that want “recognition before God” they can get that through their church service — for those that want state recognition they can get that from the state. I’d actually prefer to see them grant marriage licenses to any two consenting adults and I doubt that you’d find any of those newly able to take advantage of the benefits complaining about the “tax implications”.

  4. It figures someone with a handle like “Peo Proud” would have such a perverted view of “marriage”. For your information, “traditional” marriage has existed for centuries. The govt. confers certain benefits on married people, and certain penalties as well.
    Documentation, in the form of marrige licenses, are relatively recent bureaucratic inventions. All of that is irrelevant to the societal benefits of “traditional” marriage, which is, like it or not, the foundation of our civilization.

  5. “societal benefits of “traditional” marriage”

    How’s that working out overall? Greater than 50% divorce rate. Interestingly, divorce rates are highest among those demographics who would describe themselves as ‘traditional’, religious, not secular.
    Teen pregnancies are highest in those same demographic groups. It would seem to me that whether a couple of gals want to tie the knot or not is the least of your worries.

  6. Nice slam Mouse…..the proud in my name has nothing to do with the gay culture and everything to do with my attitude. But I still fail to see from your posts how the “traditional” marriage that you support between a man and a woman provides any more “societal benefits” than a marriage between any other two committed individuals. The true foundation of our civilization was based not upon the sex of the individuals being married but upon the approach that married individuals took in their interactions with the community and the establishment of family units.

    I’m not saying that individuals that don’t believe in gay marriage have to partake in it or even support it. But denying a state benefit on religious grounds doesn’t seem appropriate to me.

  7. It is a state sanctioned privilege. Marriage is recognized as being good for the state. It has to do with family and the integrity of parenting. Certainly not all heterosexual marriages produce children or “good” families, but the “right” to this state benefit is not about individual rights, love or commitment.
    The state has long ago decided it wants to reward traditional families. The cost of these non-traditional marriages or civil unions is the increase in insurance and other benefits to companies that already bear this cost.
    There is nothing that a civil union will provide a couple that a power of attorney or a limited partnership doesn’t already provide.

  8. Yes, kcdad, you have a pretty good idea of what I am saying. As for “Peo Proud”, I WAS referring to your attitude, not “gay culture”. The argument about divorce is bogus. It’s like arguing we should repeal the laws against murder because people commit murder anyway. The truth is, the people behind this “gay marriage” stuff just hate western civilization. Most of them want to placate every other anti-western movement, including the islamofascist terrorists, never mind that those peoples’ attitude towards “gays” is plain: extermination. Just ask the President of Iran, he’s not shy about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.