SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

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.

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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"

Mine makes marriage a ceremonial institution only.

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

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

Who issues this "certificate"?

Is it a government entity? If so why should the government issue "certificates" that don't mean anything.

Is it is a religious organization? Religious organizations have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. Are you saying the government would bar these religoius organizations from performing religious marriages and issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples if they choose?


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

POP23 SAID:

“What am I missing?”

First, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage.'

There's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states written to accommodate either same- or opposite-sex couples.

Second, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where seeking to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Third, that something is perceived to be 'traditional' is not 'justification' to deny citizens their civil rights.

And fourth, the notion of 'civil unions' is just as un-Constitutional as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, if not more so; 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Can people who get "civil unionized" call themselves husband and wife? Can they call each other "spouse"?

 

[Pop23]

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.

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

You?

 

[Pop23]

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"

Mine makes marriage a ceremonial institution only.

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

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

Who issues this "certificate"?

Is it a government entity? If so why should the government issue "certificates" that don't mean anything.

Is it is a religious organization? Religious organizations have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. Are you saying the government would bar these religoius organizations from performing religious marriages and issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples if they choose?


>>>>

Clerk of courts.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

You?

Nope. My position is clear and I'm not looking for an out. Equal protection under the law. Good stuff.

 

[Pop23]

POP23 SAID:

“What am I missing?”

First, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage.'

There's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states written to accommodate either same- or opposite-sex couples.

Second, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where seeking to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Third, that something is perceived to be 'traditional' is not 'justification' to deny citizens their civil rights.

And fourth, the notion of 'civil unions' is just as un-Constitutional as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, if not more so; 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Tradition smradition.

The traditional norm for incest is sexual contact between two family members that are closely related.

Since we are throwing tradition out the window, and since same sex heterosexuals don't have sex, then, by your arguments, same sex siblings MUST be allowed to marry. Marriage can be of great financial benefit, so if a couple of heterosexual sisters want to marry and bank those benefits, I can put you down as completely supportive of their right to Marry?

Right?

 

[Pop23]

So there is no middle ground, in your opinion.

Noted

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

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

You?

Nope. My position is clear and I'm not looking for an out. Equal protection under the law. Good stuff.

So that sign violated my constitutional rights?

It either does or doesn't

Which is it?

 

[PratchettFan]

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

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

You?

Nope. My position is clear and I'm not looking for an out. Equal protection under the law. Good stuff.

So that sign violated my constitutional rights?

It either does or doesn't

Which is it?

No. It doesn't. You have a point?

 

[Pop23]

I never realized until just now that my constitutional rights were being violated because that door had a sign on it that says "woman's restroom" on it!

Getting desperate?

You?

Nope. My position is clear and I'm not looking for an out. Equal protection under the law. Good stuff.

So that sign violated my constitutional rights?

It either does or doesn't

Which is it?

No. It doesn't. You have a point?

I feel it must, therefor it must.

Gosh, I feel better

Got a point

You "feel" a piece of paper, with zero benefits that come with it violates yours......

At least the restroom has value within it that is being denied me!!!!!

 

[PratchettFan]

Getting desperate?

You?

Nope. My position is clear and I'm not looking for an out. Equal protection under the law. Good stuff.

So that sign violated my constitutional rights?

It either does or doesn't

Which is it?

No. It doesn't. You have a point?

I feel it must, therefor it must.

Gosh, I feel better

Got a point

You "feel" a piece of paper, with zero benefits that come with it violates yours......

At least the restroom has value within it that is being denied me!!!!!

I'm sorry. You think there is some kind of special toilet in the ladies' room that isn't in the men's room?

As to the piece of paper, I have one. I get tax benefits, automatic transfer of property upon death, instant access to the hospital if my spouse is there.... Oh the list just goes on and on. A tad more than zero.

 

[RKMBrown]

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!

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

There is no "middle ground" when it comes to liberty. You either have it, or you don't.

 

[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.

I see them as both having equal rights

What does that mean?

 

[Ravi]

POP23 SAID:

“What am I missing?”

First, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage.'

There's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states written to accommodate either same- or opposite-sex couples.

Second, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where seeking to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Third, that something is perceived to be 'traditional' is not 'justification' to deny citizens their civil rights.

And fourth, the notion of 'civil unions' is just as un-Constitutional as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, if not more so; 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Tradition smradition.

The traditional norm for incest is sexual contact between two family members that are closely related.

Since we are throwing tradition out the window, and since same sex heterosexuals don't have sex, then, by your arguments, same sex siblings MUST be allowed to marry. Marriage can be of great financial benefit, so if a couple of heterosexual sisters want to marry and bank those benefits, I can put you down as completely supportive of their right to Marry?

Right?

You can't marry your dog. I actually thought you had a brain. My bad.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Clerk of courts.

I see no reason for the government to issue "Civil Marriage Certificates" to different-sex couples and deny them to same-sex couples when such "certificates" have no legal weight while "Civil Union Licenses" are then issued to different-sex and same-sex couples and it's the license that carries 100% of the legal weight.

Just a waste of government employee time, I don't see the logic in paying the man-hours and for the record generation and storage when it has 0 value as a function of government.


>>>>

 

[LoneLaugher]

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!

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

 

[RKMBrown]

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!

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.