SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

 

[bodecea]

Go ahead and submit that to your Congressman to create a bill in Congress.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The middle ground would be removing all the legal rights and adjustments to marriage. Then marriage could be kept a strictly traditional religious rite. And when people unite in the legal sense, that's "a civil union" whether gay or straight.

 

[Pop23]

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

 

[Pop23]

The middle ground would be removing all the legal rights and adjustments to marriage. Then marriage could be kept a strictly traditional religious rite. And when people unite in the legal sense, that's "a civil union" whether gay or straight.

Mine makes marriage a ceremonial institution only.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

Most churches wont perform marriages without the legal union license. Some do 'convenant marriages' which is strictly the religious part, with no legal recognition, but it's not the standard.

 

[Pop23]

Go ahead and submit that to your Congressman to create a bill in Congress.

You have no comments on the proposal?

Strange, normally you have much to say

 

[Pop23]

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

Most churches wont perform marriages without the legal union license. Some do 'convenant marriages' which is strictly the religious part, with no legal recognition, but it's not the standard.

That has nothing to do with a governmental interest though churches can do whatever they want.

 

[dcraelin]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

trouble is your still allowing benefits based on a union of some sort....what about single people? There should be no tax benefit based on relationship status.
But your proposal is better than what the gay marriage crowd now wants.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

Most churches wont perform marriages without the legal union license. Some do 'convenant marriages' which is strictly the religious part, with no legal recognition, but it's not the standard.

That has nothing to do with a governmental interest though churches can do whatever they want.

Not quite. Though Reform Judaism is ok doing gay marriages, they can't do them here in Missouri as the state forbids them, religious ceremony or not. At least according to the local synagogue.

The obvious compromise that'd make everyone happy (logicly) is simply changing the terms.

"Marriage" cna be whatever a religion defines it as. If the branch of reliigon forbids gay marriages that's fine, but if another allows it they can do them.

The state though doesn't have anything to do with "marriages." Instead, they recognize "civil unions." These are where the 1400 rights and tax adjustments and whatnot come from.

That this isn't what they do reveals the true intent behind the opposition side of same-sex marriage. They're prujudicial and trying to make their prejudice legally sanctioned. They could have their religious cake and eat it too, but they don't care about that. They only care about imposing their religious beliefs onto everyone not unlike some Muslims.

 

[Pop23]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

trouble is your still allowing benefits based on a union of some sort....what about single people? There should be no tax benefit based on relationship status.
But your proposal is better than what the gay marriage crowd now wants.

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

Most churches wont perform marriages without the legal union license. Some do 'convenant marriages' which is strictly the religious part, with no legal recognition, but it's not the standard.

That has nothing to do with a governmental interest though churches can do whatever they want.

Not quite. Though Reform Judaism is ok doing gay marriages, they can't do them here in Missouri as the state forbids them, religious ceremony or not. At least according to the local synagogue.

The obvious compromise that'd make everyone happy (logicly) is simply changing the terms.

"Marriage" cna be whatever a religion defines it as. If the branch of reliigon forbids gay marriages that's fine, but if another allows it they can do them.

The state though doesn't have anything to do with "marriages." Instead, they recognize "civil unions." These are where the 1400 rights and tax adjustments and whatnot come from.

That this isn't what they do reveals the true intent behind the opposition side of same-sex marriage. They're prujudicial and trying to make their prejudice legally sanctioned. They could have their religious cake and eat it too, but they don't care about that. They only care about imposing their religious beliefs onto everyone not unlike some Muslims.

Same sex couples couldn't get "married" under this proposal. It's simply a title given to opposite sex couples who with the "tradition" and had zero government benefits with it. To gain those, these couples would have to enter into a civil union.

 

[PratchettFan]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

Separate but equal has long since been determined to be inherently unequal. So long as the government is in the marriage business, it must be applied to everyone equally. Now, if you want to have everyone do civil unions, that is fine with me.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

trouble is your still allowing benefits based on a union of some sort....what about single people? There should be no tax benefit based on relationship status.
But your proposal is better than what the gay marriage crowd now wants.

As long as the government affords marrieds some 1400 rights and economic adjustments, denying an entire class of tax-paying citizens those benefits is pure prejudice.

Traditional doesn't enter into it.

Only if they apply for a civil union.

Most churches wont perform marriages without the legal union license. Some do 'convenant marriages' which is strictly the religious part, with no legal recognition, but it's not the standard.

That has nothing to do with a governmental interest though churches can do whatever they want.

Not quite. Though Reform Judaism is ok doing gay marriages, they can't do them here in Missouri as the state forbids them, religious ceremony or not. At least according to the local synagogue.

The obvious compromise that'd make everyone happy (logicly) is simply changing the terms.

"Marriage" cna be whatever a religion defines it as. If the branch of reliigon forbids gay marriages that's fine, but if another allows it they can do them.

The state though doesn't have anything to do with "marriages." Instead, they recognize "civil unions." These are where the 1400 rights and tax adjustments and whatnot come from.

That this isn't what they do reveals the true intent behind the opposition side of same-sex marriage. They're prujudicial and trying to make their prejudice legally sanctioned. They could have their religious cake and eat it too, but they don't care about that. They only care about imposing their religious beliefs onto everyone not unlike some Muslims.

Same sex couples couldn't get "married" under this proposal. It's simply a title given to opposite sex couples who with the "tradition" and had zero government benefits with it. To gain those, these couples would have to enter into a civil union.

They'd be united and recognized in every legal sense as being a couple. Call "marriage" whatever you want. "Platypus farming" and being a platypus farmer affords you hundreds of legal rights and benefits being "married" does not.

Both sides are trying to impose their will onto the other side. Gays want "marriage" even though "marriage" is a religious rite at odds with homosexuality. Religious people don't want "marriage" to include homosexuals for the same reason, the religions are at odds with it. Ok fine. So let uptight religious misfits keep marriage to themselves, and give homosexuals 'civil unions' but with all the perks of being married. And take away from religious "marriage" all legal recognition and perks so they can be married but not get tax adjustments, hospital visitation, etc. until they also get the "civil union."

Everyone'd get what they want except the prejudicidial ones who wnat their thing their way, and to force everyone else to conform to their way of doing things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Civil Unions as an alternative to Marriage Equality is no longer on the table.

 

[Pop23]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

Separate but equal has long since been determined to be inherently unequal. So long as the government is in the marriage business, it must be applied to everyone equally. Now, if you want to have everyone do civil unions, that is fine with me.

Yet it's not seperate but equal

 

[Pop23]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

Separate but equal has long since been determined to be inherently unequal. So long as the government is in the marriage business, it must be applied to everyone equally. Now, if you want to have everyone do civil unions, that is fine with me.

Yet it's not seperate but equal

A certificate with only a name is of zero value except in the mind of the holder. Without the certificate you have equal value.

 

[PratchettFan]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

Separate but equal has long since been determined to be inherently unequal. So long as the government is in the marriage business, it must be applied to everyone equally. Now, if you want to have everyone do civil unions, that is fine with me.

Yet it's not seperate but equal

I believe that is what I said.

 

[Pop23]

Civil Unions as an alternative to Marriage Equality is no longer on the table.

Which is not a constructive argument b

 

[PratchettFan]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

Separate but equal has long since been determined to be inherently unequal. So long as the government is in the marriage business, it must be applied to everyone equally. Now, if you want to have everyone do civil unions, that is fine with me.

Yet it's not seperate but equal

A certificate with only a name is of zero value except in the mind of the holder. Without the certificate you have equal value.

Then remove the certificate from everyone.