SSM. Seeking middle ground

[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!

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.

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

 

[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.

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

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

 

[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.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Cite where I've not sided with justice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True.

It's unwarranted and ridiculous to expect Americans to 'compromise' their civil rights only to appease the ignorance and hate of others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

 

[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!

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.

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

 

[Pop23]

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.


>>>>

What a joke

Waste of time?

The STATE COLLECTS THE FEE. ITS WHAT THE STATE DOES BEST!

 

[Pop23]

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.

And, in my plan it's afforded equally

 

[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?

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

Where did I say you could?

Oh, making shit up

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

And, in my plan it's afforded equally

No. It isn't. Why do you have a problem with equal application of the law?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.


>>>>

What a joke

Waste of time?

The STATE COLLECTS THE FEE. ITS WHAT THE STATE DOES BEST!

Just a nit.... Actually, the state is better at spending than it is collecting.

 

[Pop23]

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.

How would I know. I'm excluded but not discrimated?

My, some of us ACTUALLY grew up!

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

How would I know. I'm excluded but not discrimated?

My, some of us ACTUALLY grew up!

Ok, then let me assure you. There are only two differences. First, they don't have urinals. Second, we don't have tampon dispensers. But you will notice that if the bathroom is not unisex, there are two. So you don't have to hold it while she gets to go. You are not being discriminated against.

 

[Pop23]

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.

How would I know. I'm excluded but not discrimated?

My, some of us ACTUALLY grew up!

Ok, then let me assure you. There are only two differences. First, they don't have urinals. Second, we don't have tampon dispensers. But you will notice that if the bathroom is not unisex, there are two. So you don't have to hold it while she gets to go. You are not being discriminated against.

Oh my, seperate but equal, how novel.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

Illustrating why such a discussion could never take place.

Pity, because absent consensus, the people abdicate their role in determining what constitutes liberty, leaving it to the politicians – and ultimately the courts to decide.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

Illustrating why such a discussion could never take place.

Pity, because absent consensus, the people abdicate their role in determining what constitutes liberty, leaving it to the politicians – and ultimately the courts to decide.

No. I decide.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

How would I know. I'm excluded but not discrimated?

My, some of us ACTUALLY grew up!

Ok, then let me assure you. There are only two differences. First, they don't have urinals. Second, we don't have tampon dispensers. But you will notice that if the bathroom is not unisex, there are two. So you don't have to hold it while she gets to go. You are not being discriminated against.

Oh my, seperate but equal, how novel.

Dude, if you want to use the ladies go for it.

 

[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.

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

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Cite where I've not sided with justice.

I'll point it out to you the next time I see it. It shouldn't take long.
You still haven't answered my question.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Cite where I've not sided with justice.

I'll point it out to you the next time I see it. It shouldn't take long.
You still haven't answered my question.

How long have you been ignoring the question?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

Illustrating why such a discussion could never take place.

Pity, because absent consensus, the people abdicate their role in determining what constitutes liberty, leaving it to the politicians – and ultimately the courts to decide.

No. I decide.

Which is fine, provided you understand there will be those who disagree with your 'decision,' and seek to compel you to accept theirs, such as the OP.

Indeed, that's why the Six Circuit's ruling is being reviewed by the Court.