It is a bone thrown to Homosexuals when a state grants ‘Civil Union’ or ‘Civil Partnerships‘ that frankly is not the same as Marriage, despite the rhetoric from the politicians who massage their conscience with such claptrap. The main argument used by these fake liberals and yes, even some gays, is that it is no different than marriage, that all the rights associated with Marriage are enjoyed by those having a ‘Civil Partnership’. Well, Bullshit and you know, the Utal Supreme Court happens to agree.

(Salt Lake City, Utah) In a case involving an ex-partner in a same-sex relationship the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that the woman has no visitation rights to the birth child of her former lover even though both women had decided to have the child and both were involved in the baby’s care and upbringing. (story)

If these two Lesbians were legally married, visitation would not be so easily denied. If these two were married, and called that, then this would be exactly as the dissenting minority opinion stated, a divorce where the interests of the child would be paramount and not the issue of whether this was some strange new union as the majority claimed in rendering this decision.

Given the fact that most divorces or seperations involve court decrees, it is essential for all people to have the same rights. While the Governor vetoed a bill that would have supposedly denied same sex partners from having any rights, when it came to children. Again showing how keeping our rights separate can be manipulated. If not for that Veto this case wouldn’t even have gotten this far.

Last year as a result of the case lawmakers passed a bill that would prevent a court from awarding parental rights against the wishes of the biological or adoptive parent. It was vetoed by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.. (story)

As Stephen Dion and other Liberals have stated here, you simply cannot pick and choose who is able to be included in civil rights. They either apply to all or to none. Clearly in the case of marriage this is true, specially in the states where courts fail to take into account the needs of the child, to render decisions that do more harm than good, all because some religious nonsense that marriage can only be between a man and woman.

It makes no difference what spiritual references you hold true, the issue here isn’t that, but is civil. Calling something that is supposedly the same as somethng else, leaves the door open to different interpretations. Such as in this case.

Consider that not all parents are biological or even adopt kids of a spouse from a former marriage. As such under current Marriage they still have rights, and visitation is one of them. Under civil unions, at least in Utah, those rights do not seem to exist. Despite the supposed equality it is evident that certain rights contained within marriage are not as legally binding under civil unions, not because of any other legal differences.

Just one more reason why it has to Marriage, not civil unions or any other catch phrase label.