Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[sfcalifornia]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

It will never happen.

Freedom of speech applies to your first sentence.

Second sentence - Every church sets it's own rules for marriage. If the government could sue churches to force them to marry people, the Catholic Church would have been put "out of business" long ago. A church isn't a business though, it's a private club that sets it's own rules. As long as they don't break laws or take government money, they can do or say whatever they want. Why do you think the Westboro exists at all?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

Would this provoke an equal protection complaint from religious institutions? Religious institutions who aren’t going to gladly or willingly give up their privilege of having access to secular marriage law, regardless what the new ‘marriage law’ might be called?

And in order for your scheme to work, one would need to have two ceremonies: a religious marriage rite officiated by a member of the clergy, and a civil service conducted by an authorized agent of the state, since clergymen will no longer have the ‘power vested in me…’

 

[Seawytch]

Now that is convincing. I like that idea. Okay, I get you, and I think I'll follow your idea of the marriage question.

I like it because it pisses both side off.




>>>>

Wouldn't piss me off at all. You can call it cabbage soup as long as both gays and straights get to eat it at the same trough.

 

[American76Pride]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is fucking happy!

It'll never work. You know why?

Lutherans marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Episcopalians marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Methodists marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Presbyterians marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Marriage isn't a ceremony OR a term reserved just for YOUR church or religion.

Forget it. Government performs civil union ceremonies and call it marriage. Religion performs religious ceremonies and call it marriage. Government grant equal benefits in both circumstances for heteros. Government will soon grant benefits to gay couples too. That's the way it works. Let's move on people.

That's what I was thinking when I agreed to WorldWatcher's point of view on the issue. Nobody has any idea what the fuck marriage is anymore. Might as well make everything civil unions under law and they can have their religious ceremonies if they want.

 

[Barb]

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

I don't think that 'both sides" would be unhappy with those results. All gays ask is for equal protection under the law, and that would do it. There are countless churches in many faiths that would perform the marriage rites for those who seek religious sanction.

 

[Seawytch]

Name one state where gays turned down Civil Unions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

Would this provoke an equal protection complaint from religious institutions? Religious institutions who aren’t going to gladly or willingly give up their privilege of having access to secular marriage law, regardless what the new ‘marriage law’ might be called?

No equal protection claim as there is nothing denied the religious institutions. They still perform their religious ceremony and then sign off on the Civil Union Certificate, just like they do now. Churches perform a religious ceremony, then sign off on a Civil License.

And in order for your scheme to work, one would need to have two ceremonies: a religious marriage rite officiated by a member of the clergy, and a civil service conducted by an authorized agent of the state, since clergymen will no longer have the ‘power vested in me…’

Nope, one ceremony two different sets of documents. Whatever the religious institution wishes to issue for the religious ceremony - then sign off on the Civil Certificate.

Many places, from a civil perspective don't even require a "ceremony" that is just tradition. Sign off on the proper documents, and the couple is Civilly Married.



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

Would this provoke an equal protection complaint from religious institutions? Religious institutions who aren’t going to gladly or willingly give up their privilege of having access to secular marriage law, regardless what the new ‘marriage law’ might be called?

No equal protection claim as there is nothing denied the religious institutions. They still perform their religious ceremony and then sign off on the Civil Union Certificate, just like they do now. Churches perform a religious ceremony, then sign off on a Civil License.

And in order for your scheme to work, one would need to have two ceremonies: a religious marriage rite officiated by a member of the clergy, and a civil service conducted by an authorized agent of the state, since clergymen will no longer have the ‘power vested in me…’

Nope, one ceremony two different sets of documents. Whatever the religious institution wishes to issue for the religious ceremony - then sign off on the Civil Certificate.

Many places, from a civil perspective don't even require a "ceremony" that is just tradition. Sign off on the proper documents, and the couple is Civilly Married.



>>>>

Then this is just a name change: out of the frying pan into the fire…

Nothing resolved.

You’ll still have opposite-sex couples opposed to their state-sanctioned union – whatever it’s called – if same-sex couples are afforded access to the same (marriage) law.

Opposition to equal protection rights is about making same-sex couples different from everyone else, making them indeed second-class citizens, and to exclude them from the community in some manner.

If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is affirmed, religious entities will still be allowed to exclude same-sex couples if they wish, and same-sex couples will marry in religious institutions which elect to accommodate them, performing both religious and secular marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

Now that is convincing. I like that idea. Okay, I get you, and I think I'll follow your idea of the marriage question.

I like it because it pisses both side off.




>>>>

Wouldn't piss me off at all. You can call it cabbage soup as long as both gays and straights get to eat it at the same trough.

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Would this provoke an equal protection complaint from religious institutions? Religious institutions who aren’t going to gladly or willingly give up their privilege of having access to secular marriage law, regardless what the new ‘marriage law’ might be called?

No equal protection claim as there is nothing denied the religious institutions. They still perform their religious ceremony and then sign off on the Civil Union Certificate, just like they do now. Churches perform a religious ceremony, then sign off on a Civil License.

And in order for your scheme to work, one would need to have two ceremonies: a religious marriage rite officiated by a member of the clergy, and a civil service conducted by an authorized agent of the state, since clergymen will no longer have the ‘power vested in me…’

Nope, one ceremony two different sets of documents. Whatever the religious institution wishes to issue for the religious ceremony - then sign off on the Civil Certificate.

Many places, from a civil perspective don't even require a "ceremony" that is just tradition. Sign off on the proper documents, and the couple is Civilly Married.



>>>>

Then this is just a name change: out of the frying pan into the fire…

Nothing resolved.

You’ll still have opposite-sex couples opposed to their state-sanctioned union – whatever it’s called – if same-sex couples are afforded access to the same (marriage) law.

Opposition to equal protection rights is about making same-sex couples different from everyone else, making them indeed second-class citizens, and to exclude them from the community in some manner.

If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is affirmed, religious entities will still be allowed to exclude same-sex couples if they wish, and same-sex couples will marry in religious institutions which elect to accommodate them, performing both religious and secular marriage.

what about the 'equal protection rights' of the children involved......?

self-centered gays are creating a group of second-class citizens that are being denied their rights to both a mother and a father....they are being produced from nameless paid-for sperm and discarded paid-for mothers....

you can slap on all kinds of fancy labels and pretend that gays are the same or "equal" to a married couple but when you get right down to it.....it's a LIE....

godless Secularism via State control is simply using gays this time to replace the timeless heritage of religious wisdom which is based on natural law....to unravel further our civilized society....to marginalize religion even more....and to gain more State power......all at the expense (once again) of the helpless innocents among us.....the children....

 

[Seawytch]

I like it because it pisses both side off.




>>>>

Wouldn't piss me off at all. You can call it cabbage soup as long as both gays and straights get to eat it at the same trough.

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

You are going to be so bitter.

“there are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” ~ Justice Kennedy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wouldn't piss me off at all. You can call it cabbage soup as long as both gays and straights get to eat it at the same trough.

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

You are going to be so bitter.

“there are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” ~ Justice Kennedy

40,000 children in just California alone......?

that's the new "second class" group being created....children missing one of their real parents.....

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't piss me off at all. You can call it cabbage soup as long as both gays and straights get to eat it at the same trough.

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

You are going to be so bitter.

“there are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” ~ Justice Kennedy

The children don't give a hoot. They're already fucked by having two homos for parents. Nothing will ever erase that stain from their lives. You think making gay marriage legal isn't going to stop people from snickering whenever someone starts talking about his "two dads" or "two moms?"

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

You are going to be so bitter.

“there are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” ~ Justice Kennedy

40,000 children in just California alone......?

that's the new "second class" group being created....children missing one of their real parents.....

We are their real parents. What is important is having parents that love unconditionally. Gender is immaterial. (As numerous studies show)

 

[Seawytch]

No equal protection claim as there is nothing denied the religious institutions. They still perform their religious ceremony and then sign off on the Civil Union Certificate, just like they do now. Churches perform a religious ceremony, then sign off on a Civil License.



Nope, one ceremony two different sets of documents. Whatever the religious institution wishes to issue for the religious ceremony - then sign off on the Civil Certificate.

Many places, from a civil perspective don't even require a "ceremony" that is just tradition. Sign off on the proper documents, and the couple is Civilly Married.



>>>>

Then this is just a name change: out of the frying pan into the fire…

Nothing resolved.

You’ll still have opposite-sex couples opposed to their state-sanctioned union – whatever it’s called – if same-sex couples are afforded access to the same (marriage) law.

Opposition to equal protection rights is about making same-sex couples different from everyone else, making them indeed second-class citizens, and to exclude them from the community in some manner.

If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is affirmed, religious entities will still be allowed to exclude same-sex couples if they wish, and same-sex couples will marry in religious institutions which elect to accommodate them, performing both religious and secular marriage.

what about the 'equal protection rights' of the children involved......?

self-centered gays are creating a group of second-class citizens that are being denied their rights to both a mother and a father....they are being produced from nameless paid-for sperm and discarded paid-for mothers....

you can slap on all kinds of fancy labels and pretend that gays are the same or "equal" to a married couple but when you get right down to it.....it's a LIE....

godless Secularism via State control is simply using gays this time to replace the timeless heritage of religious wisdom which is based on natural law....to unravel further our civilized society....to marginalize religion even more....and to gain more State power......all at the expense (once again) of the helpless innocents among us.....the children....

Divorce is much worse for children than having two parents that carefully planned for and want them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

There are a lot of straight couples who can't reproduce, either. One partner is sterile or they are both too old to have children or some medical condition.

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

Do they not count as being elibigle for marriage in your eyes?

 

[Katzndogz]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

 

[Seawytch]

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

So can rich gays. I was a surrogate twice.

 

[Seawytch]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

Two-spirit people, specifically male-bodied (biologically male, gender female), could go to war and have access to male activities such as sweat lodges.[15] However, they also took on female roles such as cooking and other domestic responsibilities. Today’s societal standards look down upon feminine males, and this perception of that identity has trickled into Native society.

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[16] Female-bodied two-spirits usually had sexual relations or marriages with only females.[17] In the Lakota tribe, two-spirits commonly married widowers; a male-bodied two-spirit could perform the function of parenting the children of her husband's late wife without any risk of bearing new children to whom she might give priority.[18]
Two-Spirit

No nation has ever fallen as a result of allowing consenting adult same sex couples to legally marry. Not one.

 

[velvtacheeze]

When the GOP convention did this, , for Bristol Palin and her boy bastard, the social conservatives waived the white flag of surrender on the issue of marriage and raising bastards.

Social conservatives need to live socially conservative lives to show everyone how wonderful they supposedly are , instead of trying to police the lives of everyone else.

Oh the irony.... idiots like you are demanding that government get involved with gay relationships by demanding that government authorize and recognize their "marriage" and then scream "stop trying to police everyone else"

If you don't want to be "policed" stop demanding government hop into your gay bed stupid! Go have a private ceremony, at a private location, and get on with your fucking queer lives... God almighty are you people a bunch of self-entitled whiny little bitches that there is no pleasing!

You DON'T need government in your bed with you!!!!!!!

So which one of Rush's or Newt's wives were they "traditionally" married to? I lost track, just like the Right lost the argument, long ago.