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!

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.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

 

[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.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't have one set of laws for one group and another set of laws for another without a really valid reason. Adult vs child is a really valid reason. Gay vs straight isn't. So set it up how you like, just apply it the same way to everyone. Equal protection under the law, a right guaranteed under the Constitution, is not something I think should be compromised.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't have one set of laws for one group and another set of laws for another without a really valid reason. Adult vs child is a really valid reason. Gay vs straight isn't. So set it up how you like, just apply it the same way to everyone. Equal protection under the law, a right guaranteed under the Constitution, is not something I think should be compromised.

Pretch, honestly, how does my proposal not accomplish the goal without causing divisiveness.

Apply the law equally, this does. The "marriage" has no force of law, it could be simply a ceramonial certificate. It may be sentimental, but that's it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is a third side which is too often confused by lefties and homo propagandists as a 'traditional' or religious based POV. That is those of us in the know and progressively aware of the devastating effect pluralities of unstructured families has on communities. Adding to that condition through homo marriage adds to the problem. It is for this reason -- in addition to the reason that every human being should be afforded the very basic human right of having an opportunity to be raised by his actual natural parents -- that I'm against legal homo marriage.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then remove the certificate from everyone.

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't have one set of laws for one group and another set of laws for another without a really valid reason. Adult vs child is a really valid reason. Gay vs straight isn't. So set it up how you like, just apply it the same way to everyone. Equal protection under the law, a right guaranteed under the Constitution, is not something I think should be compromised.

Pretch, honestly, how does my proposal not accomplish the goal without causing divisiveness.

Apply the law equally, this does. The "marriage" has no force of law, it could be simply a ceramonial certificate. It may be sentimental, but that's it.

No, it doesn't. You are proposing making one law for these people and another for those people. Whatever the law is, whatever name you want to use, however you want to set it up - one law applies to everyone. If you are looking for a compromise on that, don't look to me.

 

[Pop23]

You realize you sound like a hungry man longing for an empty dish?

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't have one set of laws for one group and another set of laws for another without a really valid reason. Adult vs child is a really valid reason. Gay vs straight isn't. So set it up how you like, just apply it the same way to everyone. Equal protection under the law, a right guaranteed under the Constitution, is not something I think should be compromised.

Pretch, honestly, how does my proposal not accomplish the goal without causing divisiveness.

Apply the law equally, this does. The "marriage" has no force of law, it could be simply a ceramonial certificate. It may be sentimental, but that's it.

No, it doesn't. You are proposing making one law for these people and another for those people. Whatever the law is, whatever name you want to use, however you want to set it up - one law applies to everyone. If you are looking for a compromise on that, don't look to me.

So there is no middle ground, in your opinion.

Noted

 

[bodecea]

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

I did have a comment...submit it to your Congressman.

 

[bodecea]

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

RIght...that was shot down by several Red states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

RIght...that was shot down by several Red states.

To suggest Civil Unions at this stage of the event is cowardly.

 

[bodecea]

There is a third side which is too often confused by lefties and homo propagandists as a 'traditional' or religious based POV. That is those of us in the know and progressively aware of the devastating effect pluralities of unstructured families has on communities. Adding to that condition through homo marriage adds to the problem. It is for this reason -- in addition to the reason that every human being should be afforded the very basic human right of having an opportunity to be raised by his actual natural parents -- that I'm against legal homo marriage.

Not everyone who is married has children.
Not everyone who has children is married.
Not everyone is raised by their actual natural parents with or without gay marriage.

You are just pointing to that as an excuse for your wanting to keep your fellow Americans from being treated equally under the law.

 

[bodecea]

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

RIght...that was shot down by several Red states.

To suggest Civil Unions at this stage of the event is cowardly.

The Red states gambled and lost.....and now they want to reshuffle the deck.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

If you were arguing that 'marriage' would no longer be a legal institution, but purely a non-legal religious or other institution- then that definition would be determined by churches or individuals- not the government- so it could be anything- which might be fine.

And then what we consider legal marriage today, to convert entirely to legal civil unions which would be EXACTLY the same as legal marriage today is- in theory I would be okay with that.

But in reality- this 'compromise' is a rather late attempt to forestall what appears to be the inevitable- Conservatives have fought against both same gender marriage and civil unions equally- now that the ball is on their 5 yard line, and same gender couples have the ball, they suggest a compromise of putting the ball on the 50 yard line.

 

[Syriusly]

. That is those of us in the know .

Isn't it ironic that anyone who says such a thing, clearly is not 'in the know'?

 

[Ravi]

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!

Not sure why you think you can define a term for someone else. If two people want to call themselves married, why would you be allowed to tell them they cannot.

Not to mention churches that hold SSM ceremonies. How do you propose to outlaw that?

 

[PratchettFan]

And you sound like someone looking for a justification to do something he knows is wrong.

Like what? Compromise? I know that's a dirty word these days.

Tough being a moderate.

Ya have to admit, by flipping the coin, making marriage an empty shell, it appears the other side is "simply hung up on a word"

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't have one set of laws for one group and another set of laws for another without a really valid reason. Adult vs child is a really valid reason. Gay vs straight isn't. So set it up how you like, just apply it the same way to everyone. Equal protection under the law, a right guaranteed under the Constitution, is not something I think should be compromised.

Pretch, honestly, how does my proposal not accomplish the goal without causing divisiveness.

Apply the law equally, this does. The "marriage" has no force of law, it could be simply a ceramonial certificate. It may be sentimental, but that's it.

No, it doesn't. You are proposing making one law for these people and another for those people. Whatever the law is, whatever name you want to use, however you want to set it up - one law applies to everyone. If you are looking for a compromise on that, don't look to me.

So there is no middle ground, in your opinion.

Noted

that's right. I don't compromise on Constitutional rights.

 

[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!

Not sure why you think you can define a term for someone else. If two people want to call themselves married, why would you be allowed to tell them they cannot.

Not to mention churches that hold SSM ceremonies. How do you propose to outlaw that?

You can claim anything you want. I know two couples that aren't married and for convenience sake, say they are.

So, no comment on the middle of the road solution?

 

[Ravi]

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!

Not sure why you think you can define a term for someone else. If two people want to call themselves married, why would you be allowed to tell them they cannot.

Not to mention churches that hold SSM ceremonies. How do you propose to outlaw that?

You can claim anything you want. I know two couples that aren't married and for convenience sake, say they are.

So, no comment on the middle of the road solution?

I did comment. Your solution isn't middle of the road it is unconstitutional. People can call themselves married. Churches can define marriage to include SSM.

 

[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!

Not sure why you think you can define a term for someone else. If two people want to call themselves married, why would you be allowed to tell them they cannot.

Not to mention churches that hold SSM ceremonies. How do you propose to outlaw that?

You can claim anything you want. I know two couples that aren't married and for convenience sake, say they are.

So, no comment on the middle of the road solution?

I did comment. Your solution isn't middle of the road it is unconstitutional. People can call themselves married. Churches can define marriage to include SSM.

I see them as both having equal rights