Gay marriage (2 Viewers)

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Apparently it's not okay to speculate about the Pope and the reproductive act. Too bad, since Vivian had some good stuff.

It got moved to the "Are Mormons Christians" thread.

I still contend this is 'too bad,' since my religion forbids me to click on Mormon threads.

 

[Jericho]

Apparently it's not okay to speculate about the Pope and the reproductive act.  Too bad, since Vivian had some good stuff.

It got moved to the "Are Mormons Christians" thread.

I still contend this is 'too bad,' since my religion forbids me to click on Mormon threads.

[Coach]How can you click on a thread? I looked it up on dictionary.com and it clearly indicates a thread is a thin fibre of cloth. What good does clicking on it do? And how can it be Mormon?[/Coach]

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:

:

so why can't we go a page without someone repeating that the states will not recognize it when really, we are waiting for the federal government to rule on this?

If we weren't waiting for the feds to do it, why is it a campaign issue int he Presedential election?

The Federal Government ruled on this in 1996 with Defense of Marriage Act.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

BY REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE SKELTON (MO)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress' power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex "marriage." This provision is necessary in light of the possibility of Hawaii giving sanction to same-sex "marriage" under its state law, as interpreted by its state courts, and other states being placed in the position of having to give "full faith and credit" to Hawaii's interpretation of what constitutes "marriage." Although so-called "conflicts of law" principles do not necessarily compel such a result, approximately 30 states of the union are sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect to have initiated legislative efforts to defend themselves against any compulsion to acknowledge same-sex "marriage."

This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress' authority under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts, records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress has invoked this authority recently on two other occasions; in the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, which required each State to enforce child custody determinations made by the home State if made consistently with the provisions of the Act; and in the Full Faith and

Credit for child Support Order Act of 1994, which required each State to enforce child support orders made by the child's State if made consistently with the provisions of the Act.

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington

state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985).

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

It is a campaign issue because this law is not likely to survive a Constitutional Challenge- George W Says-

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly.

The only text for the Amendment I could find today is

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

It specifically does the opposite of declaring Civil Unions are legally the same as Marriage. It states that same sex unions do not equate to marriage at the federal level. This is why this is a campaign issue.***Edited to fix quotations

 

[larry_boy_44]

guess they might have had it wrong:http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072803.htmlcheck this article out:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37410never heard of worldnetdaily (there might be a reason for that...) what do you think??check this out, a few instances of "anti-dissent laws":http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.htmlhttp://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.a...52&art_id=20848there are 4 articles about how it could happen... nothing on major news sources, though...anyone find anything? Maybe I'm just bad at looking...edit to add: I got the links by searching on CNN.com if that changes anything lol

no thoughts on these laws being passed?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

OK - pardon my ignorance but, briefly, what does W mean by 'activist courts'? For some reason I was under the impression that most on the supreme court were nominated by Republicans and friendlyt to their positions.What happens if the DOMA is struck down? It seems like that would give Hawaii (or any state) the green light for gay marriages/unions and all other states would have to recognize them - no?

 

[Spartans Rule]

guess they might have had it wrong:http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072803.htmlcheck this article out:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37410never heard of worldnetdaily (there might be a reason for that...) what do you think??check this out, a few instances of "anti-dissent laws":http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.htmlhttp://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.a...52&art_id=20848there are 4 articles about how it could happen... nothing on major news sources, though...anyone find anything? Maybe I'm just bad at looking...edit to add: I got the links by searching on CNN.com if that changes anything lol

no thoughts on these laws being passed?

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

guess they might have had it wrong:http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072803.htmlcheck this article out:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37410never heard of worldnetdaily (there might be a reason for that...) what do you think??check this out, a few instances of "anti-dissent laws":http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.htmlhttp://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.a...52&art_id=20848there are 4 articles about how it could happen... nothing on major news sources, though...anyone find anything? Maybe I'm just bad at looking...edit to add: I got the links by searching on CNN.com if that changes anything lol

no thoughts on these laws being passed?

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

But the US is not Europe. Ordinary Americans (not in the military) did not experience the same horrors of hate during the 20th century as Europeans dealt with. Valuing the suppression of hate over freedom is where Europe appears to be at right now - they are wrong because when you trade freedom for something else you get neither. When you freely deny one group freedoms regardless of how small that group is, you allow your freedoms to be denied. Equality under the law is a requirement for freedom. The US was founded by Thinking Men whom had studied the progress of politics from the devinely inspired single leader to trusting that man could self govern. They feared Tryanny from the King, from the upper class, and from the masses. The Puritans of New England and the Catholics of Maryland were polar opposites on the Christianity scale but they had to work with each other. (Puritian means to purify the Church by removing the Catholic add-ons.) Many of these founding fathers were Christian, some were Humanist but they were thinking men first and while their religious convictions would absolutely "spill over" into everything they did, they specifically did not create a Christian nation because they valued freedom above all else. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

OK - pardon my ignorance but, briefly, what does W mean by 'activist courts'? For some reason I was under the impression that most on the supreme court were nominated by Republicans and friendlyt to their positions.What happens if the DOMA is struck down? It seems like that would give Hawaii (or any state) the green light for gay marriages/unions and all other states would have to recognize them - no?

"Activist Courts" is a Conservative Rally cry. They oppose that the idea of Judicial Precedence where one court finding applies to any other court finding. I think they realize that unless they alter our constitution it is only matter of time before they are on the losing side of history. I'm not saying they think their positions are wrong, but that the US is spinning out of control so fast that they cannot ultimately win. Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to strike down all of these laws that protect marriage.(Liberals fear that it is only a matter of time before the courts are so stacked with conservatives that all the progress of the past 40 years or so will get rolled back. So I don't think Judicial Appointments will be any smoother any time soon.)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What happens if the DOMA is struck down? It seems like that would give Hawaii (or any state) the green light for gay marriages/unions and all other states would have to recognize them - no?

It's unclear what would happen. Someone would certainly bring a lawsuit that another state had to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages. It would probably go to the Supreme Court. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution suggests that the gay couple would win, but apparently there are some cases out there holding that states do not have to recognize marriages that would be invalid in their own states (e.g. marriages between cousins). Nobody knows what the Supreme Court would do, which is why the conservatives passed DOMA and are trying to amend the Constitution.

 

[larry_boy_44]

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

is saying that you believe something is wrong hateful?I mean, really...I don't preach that homosexuals will go to hell more than liars, cheaters, thiefs, porn-addicts, adulterers, murderers, rapists, etc..everyone is going to hell without God's grace... but part of the requirement of God's grace is to turn from your sin... it won't always work, but it is something you need to do....how is that hateful?

 

[Peens]

This thread is like HIV.......It just doesnt go away!

 

[larry_boy_44]

This thread is like HIV.......It just doesnt go away!

unless your Magic Johnson...

 

[MelvinTScupper]

This thread is like HIV.......It just doesnt go away!

unless your Magic Johnson...

unless my magic johnson does what?

 

[larry_boy_44]

This thread is like HIV.......It just doesnt go away! 

unless your Magic Johnson...

unless my magic johnson does what?

Unless you are the basketball player Magic Johnson..if you are, HIV goes away...I don't know why... but it does...

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys stopped responding after I posted those articles... I've gotten one reply...what, someone posts proof, and you shut up? huh???

 

[toshiba]

Another election season, time to drag this out and beat it to death!

 

[QUEZILLA]

Only if they're white lesbians and are hot.

Worst post of the year, go listen to your Prussian Blue cd.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The three biggest contributors to this thread:

larry_boy_44 61 MacArtist 49 Peens 45

There is undoubtedly some valuable insight here.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know why we still discuss this. It's pretty simple. The correct solution is to remove "marriage" from anything government. Period. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.

This way, conservatives won't be upset that someone is trying to "steal" their definition of marriage and liberals will have the existing roadblocks destroyed opening the way for everyone to be treated fairly.

For some reason, I don't think it will ever happen. Which is very sad.

 

[CrossEyed]

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

is saying that you believe something is wrong hateful?I mean, really...I don't preach that homosexuals will go to hell more than liars, cheaters, thiefs, porn-addicts, adulterers, murderers, rapists, etc..everyone is going to hell without God's grace... but part of the requirement of God's grace is to turn from your sin... it won't always work, but it is something you need to do....how is that hateful?

Might not be hateful but it's a horrible misunderstanding of God's grace.

 

[The Commish]

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

is saying that you believe something is wrong hateful?I mean, really...I don't preach that homosexuals will go to hell more than liars, cheaters, thiefs, porn-addicts, adulterers, murderers, rapists, etc..everyone is going to hell without God's grace... but part of the requirement of God's grace is to turn from your sin... it won't always work, but it is something you need to do....how is that hateful?

Might not be hateful but it's a horrible misunderstanding of God's grace.

t-minus 5.....4......3......2......1

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't know why we still discuss this. It's pretty simple. The correct solution is to remove "marriage" from anything government. Period. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.This way, conservatives won't be upset that someone is trying to "steal" their definition of marriage and liberals will have the existing roadblocks destroyed opening the way for everyone to be treated fairly.For some reason, I don't think it will ever happen. Which is very sad.

How is rewriting thousands of laws a simple solution? Seems like a much more complex solution than just allowing gay people to get married.

 

[CrossEyed]

First off, I would avoid worldnetdaily. I hadn't heard of it either, but the slant in that article is ridiculous and the credibility is long gone early on.The other three articles do make the point though. I'm not in favor of christians being arrested merely for preaching their beliefs. Sure, those beliefs may be ignorant and hateful. But if everyone who has stupid ideas was jailed, there wouldn't be too many free people left.Separation of church and state has to work both ways. Keeping the government out of religion is just as important as keeping religion out of the government.

is saying that you believe something is wrong hateful?I mean, really...I don't preach that homosexuals will go to hell more than liars, cheaters, thiefs, porn-addicts, adulterers, murderers, rapists, etc..everyone is going to hell without God's grace... but part of the requirement of God's grace is to turn from your sin... it won't always work, but it is something you need to do....how is that hateful?

Might not be hateful but it's a horrible misunderstanding of God's grace.

t-minus 5.....4......3......2......1

If you're waiting for a big argument, it's not going to happen. I won't waste my time.But if you're waiting for larry to go postal, that's another story.

 

[Slinger]

I don't know why we still discuss this. It's pretty simple. The correct solution is to remove "marriage" from anything government. Period. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.This way, conservatives won't be upset that someone is trying to "steal" their definition of marriage and liberals will have the existing roadblocks destroyed opening the way for everyone to be treated fairly.For some reason, I don't think it will ever happen. Which is very sad.

Excellent point.I voted 'against' and hope my alias feels the same way.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know why we still discuss this. It's pretty simple. The correct solution is to remove "marriage" from anything government. Period. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.This way, conservatives won't be upset that someone is trying to "steal" their definition of marriage and liberals will have the existing roadblocks destroyed opening the way for everyone to be treated fairly.For some reason, I don't think it will ever happen. Which is very sad.

How is rewriting thousands of laws a simple solution? Seems like a much more complex solution than just allowing gay people to get married.

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

 

[CrossEyed]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

You're right, there's always someone who isn't happy.

 

[scoobygang]

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

You really think the MILLIONS of Americans whose marriages are invalidated are happy? I guarantee you that if my side proposed this solution, the first thing out of the conservatives mouths would be, "See, we told you they were attacking marriage."I like my marriage. I like the benefits it confers. I'd rather not have to contract for all those things on an ad hoc basis. I think there is significant value added in the governmental recognition of my marriage, and I think that gays would also benefit from that added value.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

You're right, there's always someone who isn't happy.

It's not just a few looneys. I think a lot of people would be unhappy if you told them the government no longer recognizes them as "married."

 

[The Commish]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

Who's not? My understanding is gay couple want the same tax breaks, paternity/maternity laws, estate laws etc etc etc as straight couples. The straight couples fight this because the gay people want to call it marriage and they feel it infringes on what their marriage means. This particular problem wouldn't exist if our government didn't use the term marriage to define a relationship. If it was removed, neither would have a gripe to stand on. The straight people wouldn't have to worry about their "marriages" being cheapened and no existing issue from straight people would be relavent to keep gay people from the same rights they themselves have. Who wouldn't be happy in this? If you are suggesting straight people would still be unhappy that gay people had the same rights as them, I agree. There probably would be, but it least it's not something straight people could pawn off as a technicality. The loophole would be closed and the straight people would have to find a new argument.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

Who's not? My understanding is gay couple want the same tax breaks, paternity/maternity laws, estate laws etc etc etc as straight couples. The straight couples fight this because the gay people want to call it marriage and they feel it infringes on what their marriage means. This particular problem wouldn't exist if our government didn't use the term marriage to define a relationship. If it was removed, neither would have a gripe to stand on. The straight people wouldn't have to worry about their "marriages" being cheapened and no existing issue from straight people would be relavent to keep gay people from the same rights they themselves have. Who wouldn't be happy in this? If you are suggesting straight people would still be unhappy that gay people had the same rights as them, I agree. There probably would be, but it least it's not something straight people could pawn off as a technicality. The loophole would be closed and the straight people would have to find a new argument.

Straight people would be upset that they were no longer considered "married."

 

[The Commish]

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

You really think the MILLIONS of Americans whose marriages are invalidated are happy? I guarantee you that if my side proposed this solution, the first thing out of the conservatives mouths would be, "See, we told you they were attacking marriage."I like my marriage. I like the benefits it confers. I'd rather not have to contract for all those things on an ad hoc basis. I think there is significant value added in the governmental recognition of my marriage, and I think that gays would also benefit from that added value.

Why would marriages be invalidated? I don't understand this. They wouldn't be invalidated. It would just be called a civil union in governmental terms. Call it what you want in your personal life. That's my point. What is being said and what people really feel are two different things, IMO, when it comes to this topic.Gay People say: We want gay marriage.Gay people want: Same rights as married couples.Straight people say: Marriage is defined in the Bible as a union between a man and a woman so you can't be married...sorry.Straight people want: To have certain privs for being married, but think gay people shouldn't be afforded the same privs because gayness (if that's a word) is dirty.The only argument (and a VERY weak one, imo) that straight people have right now, is this term marriage. Remove it and all their defense crumbles beneth them.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

You really think the MILLIONS of Americans whose marriages are invalidated are happy? I guarantee you that if my side proposed this solution, the first thing out of the conservatives mouths would be, "See, we told you they were attacking marriage."I like my marriage. I like the benefits it confers. I'd rather not have to contract for all those things on an ad hoc basis. I think there is significant value added in the governmental recognition of my marriage, and I think that gays would also benefit from that added value.

Why would marriages be invalidated? I don't understand this. They wouldn't be invalidated. It would just be called a civil union in governmental terms. Call it what you want in your personal life. That's my point. What is being said and what people really feel are two different things, IMO, when it comes to this topic.Gay People say: We want gay marriage.Gay people want: Same rights as married couples.Straight people say: Marriage is defined in the Bible as a union between a man and a woman so you can't be married...sorry.Straight people want: To have certain privs for being married, but think gay people shouldn't be afforded the same privs because gayness (if that's a word) is dirty.The only argument (and a VERY weak one, imo) that straight people have right now, is this term marriage. Remove it and all their defense crumbles beneth them.

Wouldn't this create a lot of confusion about who was "married?"

 

[The Commish]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

Who's not? My understanding is gay couple want the same tax breaks, paternity/maternity laws, estate laws etc etc etc as straight couples. The straight couples fight this because the gay people want to call it marriage and they feel it infringes on what their marriage means. This particular problem wouldn't exist if our government didn't use the term marriage to define a relationship. If it was removed, neither would have a gripe to stand on. The straight people wouldn't have to worry about their "marriages" being cheapened and no existing issue from straight people would be relavent to keep gay people from the same rights they themselves have. Who wouldn't be happy in this? If you are suggesting straight people would still be unhappy that gay people had the same rights as them, I agree. There probably would be, but it least it's not something straight people could pawn off as a technicality. The loophole would be closed and the straight people would have to find a new argument.

Straight people would be upset that they were no longer considered "married."

Agreed....I guess instead of saying "everyone's happy" I should say "everyone's concerns would be addressed as presented" Those people need to look seriously at their self esteem, imo though....that's an issue. I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

 

[The Commish]

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

You really think the MILLIONS of Americans whose marriages are invalidated are happy? I guarantee you that if my side proposed this solution, the first thing out of the conservatives mouths would be, "See, we told you they were attacking marriage."I like my marriage. I like the benefits it confers. I'd rather not have to contract for all those things on an ad hoc basis. I think there is significant value added in the governmental recognition of my marriage, and I think that gays would also benefit from that added value.

Why would marriages be invalidated? I don't understand this. They wouldn't be invalidated. It would just be called a civil union in governmental terms. Call it what you want in your personal life. That's my point. What is being said and what people really feel are two different things, IMO, when it comes to this topic.Gay People say: We want gay marriage.Gay people want: Same rights as married couples.Straight people say: Marriage is defined in the Bible as a union between a man and a woman so you can't be married...sorry.Straight people want: To have certain privs for being married, but think gay people shouldn't be afforded the same privs because gayness (if that's a word) is dirty.The only argument (and a VERY weak one, imo) that straight people have right now, is this term marriage. Remove it and all their defense crumbles beneth them.

Wouldn't this create a lot of confusion about who was "married?"

Now you are just being silly and/or argumenative. If it created confusion, it would be because individuals wanted it to be confusing not because the concept is confusing.

 

[trogg78]

I think if they do allow gay marriage that it should not be legal for a person to married to a man and a women at the same time. If by chance they do allow a person to marry an animal I think it should be ok for them to marry a man or a woman, but not both.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Govermental validation is what makes people married. At least, that was always my impression until all these bigots started making stuff up.

 

[scoobygang]

The only argument (and a VERY weak one, imo) that straight people have right now, is this term marriage. Remove it and all their defense crumbles beneth them.

I still think a number of married people would feel disrespected, but that's certainly a better framing of the issue. But the point is that marriage exists outside of the Biblical context. However billion Chinese are married and they don't give a crap about the Bible. This type of "purity of language" objection to gay marriage is just phenomenally silly. Marriage is one of thousands of words that mean subtlely different things in different contexts. The distinction these people are looking for already exists, because we recognize the difference between {civil} marriage and a marriage performed in a church. The idea that gays are seeking {civil} marriage is inherently understood.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Wouldn't this create a lot of confusion about who was "married?"

Now you are just being silly and/or argumenative. If it created confusion, it would be because individuals wanted it to be confusing not because the concept is confusing.

You really don't think it would be confusing? Lots of straight people currently get married by a justice of the peace. And lots of gay people get married by clergy. Everyone would have a different view of who was married.

 

[scoobygang]

BTW, I don't believe for a second that the opposition to gay marriage is confined to the word marriage.

The constitutional amendment on the ballot here in Virginia would ban gay marriage and "any arrangement designed to approximate the benefits and protections of marriage". A very similar amendment is what passed in Ohio in 2004.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

We've been through this and my answer doesn't change. We make amendments to laws all the time, this would be no different. It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy. In yours they aren't. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. Besides, for as much as everyone whines about seperation of church and state, I'd think you'd want this. This is a direct connection between the two that could be and should be severed.

You really think the MILLIONS of Americans whose marriages are invalidated are happy?

 

[bigbottom]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

Who's not? My understanding is gay couple want the same tax breaks, paternity/maternity laws, estate laws etc etc etc as straight couples. The straight couples fight this because the gay people want to call it marriage and they feel it infringes on what their marriage means. This particular problem wouldn't exist if our government didn't use the term marriage to define a relationship. If it was removed, neither would have a gripe to stand on. The straight people wouldn't have to worry about their "marriages" being cheapened and no existing issue from straight people would be relavent to keep gay people from the same rights they themselves have. Who wouldn't be happy in this? If you are suggesting straight people would still be unhappy that gay people had the same rights as them, I agree. There probably would be, but it least it's not something straight people could pawn off as a technicality. The loophole would be closed and the straight people would have to find a new argument.

Straight people would be upset that they were no longer considered "married."

Agreed....I guess instead of saying "everyone's happy" I should say "everyone's concerns would be addressed as presented" Those people need to look seriously at their self esteem, imo though....that's an issue. I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Their concerns may be addressed "as presented" but for many, if not most, gay marriage opponents, their concerns won't be addressed at all. For those folks it's about far more than the term marriage. Their concerns include the following:1) Not wanting gay couples to enjoy the benefits and privileges of a government-recognized union.2) Not wanting our government to legitimize homosexual relationships through legal recognition.3) Not wanting heterosexual unions to be viewed equally with homosexual unions with respect to our government and laws.None of these concerns would be addressed by our government replacing recognition of marriage with a recognition of heterosexual and homosexual civil unions. For most gay marriage opponents, this is about far more than a word. Look at the recent legislation passed by a number of states outlawing civil unions for gays. Couple the above with the proposal that the government will no longer recognize "marriage," and there's going to be a lot of unhappy people out there.

 

[shining path]

BTW, I don't believe for a second that the opposition to gay marriage is confined to the word marriage.The constitutional amendment on the ballot here in Virginia would ban gay marriage and "any arrangement designed to approximate the benefits and protections of marriage". A very similar amendment is what passed in Ohio in 2004.

Even when it is confined to the word marriage, it's normally just a proxy argument by people who are uncomfortable with their own bigotry.

 

[The Commish]

I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Govermental validation is what makes people married. At least, that was always my impression until all these bigots started making stuff up.

For some this is true, and I feel bad for them. They shouldn't need the government to validate a relationship between them and their significant other. For me personally, I couldn't care less what the government thought of my relationship with my wife. Guess that's just the way I am

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Govermental validation is what makes people married. At least, that was always my impression until all these bigots started making stuff up.

For some this is true, and I feel bad for them. They shouldn't need the government to validate a relationship between them and their significant other. For me personally, I couldn't care less what the government thought of my relationship with my wife. Guess that's just the way I am

Why would you feel bad for someone because they use a word differently from you? Especially when their way is the way most people use the word.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, I don't believe for a second that the opposition to gay marriage is confined to the word marriage.The constitutional amendment on the ballot here in Virginia would ban gay marriage and "any arrangement designed to approximate the benefits and protections of marriage". A very similar amendment is what passed in Ohio in 2004.

All but one of the ammendments in 2004 specifically said civil unions were not the same as marriage.

 

[The Commish]

It is more complex than just letting gay people get married, but in this solution, everyone is happy.

Not true.

Who's not? My understanding is gay couple want the same tax breaks, paternity/maternity laws, estate laws etc etc etc as straight couples. The straight couples fight this because the gay people want to call it marriage and they feel it infringes on what their marriage means. This particular problem wouldn't exist if our government didn't use the term marriage to define a relationship. If it was removed, neither would have a gripe to stand on. The straight people wouldn't have to worry about their "marriages" being cheapened and no existing issue from straight people would be relavent to keep gay people from the same rights they themselves have. Who wouldn't be happy in this? If you are suggesting straight people would still be unhappy that gay people had the same rights as them, I agree. There probably would be, but it least it's not something straight people could pawn off as a technicality. The loophole would be closed and the straight people would have to find a new argument.

Straight people would be upset that they were no longer considered "married."

Agreed....I guess instead of saying "everyone's happy" I should say "everyone's concerns would be addressed as presented" Those people need to look seriously at their self esteem, imo though....that's an issue. I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Their concerns may be addressed "as presented" but for many, if not most, gay marriage opponents, their concerns won't be addressed at all. For those folks it's about far more than the term marriage. Their concerns include the following:1) Not wanting gay couples to enjoy the benefits and privileges of a government-recognized union.2) Not wanting our government to legitimize homosexual relationships through legal recognition.3) Not wanting heterosexual unions to be viewed equally with homosexual unions with respect to our government and laws.None of these concerns would be addressed by our government replacing recognition of marriage with a recognition of heterosexual and homosexual civil unions. For most gay marriage opponents, this is about far more than a word. Look at the recent legislation passed by a number of states outlawing civil unions for gays. Couple the above with the proposal that the government will no longer recognize "marriage," and there's going to be a lot of unhappy people out there.

I agree with everything you say, but changing it would make it a personal problem (which we know it is) and not a government problem. These are the same kinds of personal problems people have/had with slavery and a woman's right to vote. They were abolished, but some people still believe that it's ok if these groups of people be treated differently. So we get rid of the "technicality" that the bigots seem to hide behind and expose it for what it is. In doing so, the gay couples get what they want and the government is absolved of the bigotry because it doesn't exist from a governmental standpoint.

 

[The Commish]

I'll never understand why they need validation from a government to think they are "married"

Govermental validation is what makes people married. At least, that was always my impression until all these bigots started making stuff up.

For some this is true, and I feel bad for them. They shouldn't need the government to validate a relationship between them and their significant other. For me personally, I couldn't care less what the government thought of my relationship with my wife. Guess that's just the way I am

Why would you feel bad for someone because they use a word differently from you? Especially when their way is the way most people use the word.

I don't feel bad for the way they use a word. I feel bad because they rely on the government to define the word for them.

 

[The Commish]

BTW, I don't believe for a second that the opposition to gay marriage is confined to the word marriage.The constitutional amendment on the ballot here in Virginia would ban gay marriage and "any arrangement designed to approximate the benefits and protections of marriage". A very similar amendment is what passed in Ohio in 2004.

All but one of the ammendments in 2004 specifically said civil unions were not the same as marriage.

and this sucks

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

This just in, the religious right has conceded that gay marriage should be allowed only if it is referred to as an "unholy union".