Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.

And again Boss- I have no idea with the concept.

If you can implement your plan before same gender marriage is legal in all 50 states, I would be fine with that.

I think that the majority of the same people who oppose same gender marriage- AND the majority of people who support same gender marriage would oppose your plan.

Far from everyone getting what they want- I think both sides would feel cheated. Not that that bothers me- but it will prevent your plan from execution.

 

[Boss]

Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Federal government could eliminate Federal benefits to marriage, but couldn't actually eliminate marriage.

Well yes, marriage laws are currently under state authority, but that doesn't affect what the Feds do regarding domestic arrangements. Once there is no Federal purpose for defining marriage, there is no reason for states to do so either. If the Feds aren't going to recognize a "marriage license" anymore, there would be no purpose for the state to issue them. Okay, so your state wants to be defiant and cling to issuing marriage licenses? Fine, but you can no longer file joint tax returns or be eligible for Social Security benefits, etc.

And under this scenario, we are just one court case away from ruling the "marriage license" unconstitutional. You cannot have states defiantly preventing citizens from obtaining legitimate government benefits. I don't think it would ever come to this, as states would see the writing on the wall and comply with establishing civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

 

[Syriusly]

Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Federal government could eliminate Federal benefits to marriage, but couldn't actually eliminate marriage.

Well yes, marriage laws are currently under state authority, but that doesn't affect what the Feds do regarding domestic arrangements. Once there is no Federal purpose for defining marriage, there is no reason for states to do so either. If the Feds aren't going to recognize a "marriage license" anymore, there would be no purpose for the state to issue them. Okay, so your state wants to be defiant and cling to issuing marriage licenses? Fine, but you can no longer file joint tax returns or be eligible for Social Security benefits, etc.

And under this scenario, we are just one court case away from ruling the "marriage license" unconstitutional. You cannot have states defiantly preventing citizens from obtaining legitimate government benefits. I don't think it would ever come to this, as states would see the writing on the wall and comply with establishing civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.

 

[Boss]

Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.

And again Boss- I have no idea with the concept.

If you can implement your plan before same gender marriage is legal in all 50 states, I would be fine with that.

I think that the majority of the same people who oppose same gender marriage- AND the majority of people who support same gender marriage would oppose your plan.

Far from everyone getting what they want- I think both sides would feel cheated. Not that that bothers me- but it will prevent your plan from execution.

You can cite all the polls you like, there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people. It only exists in states where legislatures and courts have ruled it into existence, often to the disapproval of the people. That will not stand, and you should be smart enough to understand it won't. You're merely setting up a situation where future legislatures and courts can rule the other way, and this issue continues to be an issue.

As I see it, the only people who would oppose my solution are the extreme activists on both sides, who are using this issue for political gain. They are not interested in a resolution unless it's THEIR solution, which isn't going to happen. So we can go back and forth for another 20, 30, 40 years, not resolving this, as gay couples live out their lives without the benefits they seek and we remain politically at each other's throats... OR.... we can come to some kind of agreement on a solution which basically gives everyone what they want.

 

[Boss]

Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over...

This makes NO logical sense to me. If the State has authority over something, it is NOT a right!

 

[Seawytch]

there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people.

Not true.

Maine, Maryland and Washington.

 

[Syriusly]

Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.

And again Boss- I have no idea with the concept.

If you can implement your plan before same gender marriage is legal in all 50 states, I would be fine with that.

I think that the majority of the same people who oppose same gender marriage- AND the majority of people who support same gender marriage would oppose your plan.

Far from everyone getting what they want- I think both sides would feel cheated. Not that that bothers me- but it will prevent your plan from execution.

You can cite all the polls you like, there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people. t.

Look- if you want to have a conversation- but if you are going to make a claim- and then I show you the numbers- admit that your hyperbole was incorrect - but don't just suddenly pretend like the polls aren't real.

And then you have gone and done it again.

In the regular November 2012 elections, voters for the first time approved the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote in three states: Maine, Maryland, and Washington

 

[Syriusly]

Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over...

This makes NO logical sense to me. If the State has authority over something, it is NOT a right!

Sure- you have a right to own a gun- but the State has the authority to regulate guns- and for example- prevent a convicted felon from owning a gun.

A state must have a compelling interest in denying rights to someone- like not allowing a convicted felon from owning a gun- or denying the right of association to a convicted sex offender.

 

[toxicmedia]

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.

You forgot my motivation for opposition. I don't believe government or courts should dictate what I call marriage or what anyone calls marriage. Also, because of Equal Protection, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow marriage to be sanctioned by government on the basis of sexuality. I believe it would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis, and the Constitution would support them.

You fit # 2.

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about this, who uses that consitutional argument...is in the late stages of marriage equality argument erosion. It's the last refuge for folks before they give up and say...."Oh screw it, it's okay I guess"

 

[Boss]

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.

You forgot my motivation for opposition. I don't believe government or courts should dictate what I call marriage or what anyone calls marriage. Also, because of Equal Protection, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow marriage to be sanctioned by government on the basis of sexuality. I believe it would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis, and the Constitution would support them.

You fit # 2.

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about this, who uses that consitutional argument...is in the late stages of marriage equality argument erosion. It's the last refuge for folks before they give up and say...."Oh screw it, it's okay I guess"

No, I don't fit #2 because I don't care what kind of sex other people have. As for "late stages" or whatever, I am on record with a sensible civil unions proposal which would give gay couples what they want.... and they already have marriage equality. I'm not using an argument to prevent gay couples from obtaining the benefits they want, I am suggesting a way that can be accomplished without having government redefine marriage for us.

What you are doing is rejecting my proposal and continuing with the vitriolic attacks on my character. It proves my earlier point that you aren't interested in resolving the issue because you get too much political mileage out of having it around. It lets you sit here and tee off on me, call me names, pretend I am homophobic and bigoted, liken me to racists, etc. That gets your rocks off and you don't want to give it up, even if it would help gay couples.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have no idea if you personally fit #2 or not.

Doesn't matter.

Because of the legal responsibilities in marriage, the arrangement will continue to addressed in law.

 

[Boss]

Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over...

This makes NO logical sense to me. If the State has authority over something, it is NOT a right!

Sure- you have a right to own a gun- but the State has the authority to regulate guns- and for example- prevent a convicted felon from owning a gun.

A state must have a compelling interest in denying rights to someone- like not allowing a convicted felon from owning a gun- or denying the right of association to a convicted sex offender.

Guns are different because we all have the right to live. But for clarity sake, I believe we should all have the right to call marriage whatever we please. I don't believe there is any compelling reason to allow government that power over us, whether it is to tell us we must accept "gay marriage" or we must accept "traditional marriage."

 

[Boss]

I have no idea if you personally fit #2 or not.

Doesn't matter.

Because of the legal responsibilities in marriage, the arrangement will continue to addressed in law.

As I suggested, we simply redefine current law at the federal level. There is no fundamental purpose why the government needs to know the nature of my relationship with another human being. None. We've entangled government in this issue it has no business being involved with. Our relationships should be left for US to define, not the government, not the courts, not your activist group or theirs.

 

[Boss]

there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people.

Not true.

Maine, Maryland and Washington.

Okay, I stand corrected, as of 2012 there are three. Still, this can be undone by future ballot initiatives. You've legitimized the process. I've proposed a solution that takes it off the ballots forever, no more haggling back and forth, just a resolve that satisfies everyone. Except for the extreme activist, that is.

 

[toxicmedia]

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.

You forgot my motivation for opposition. I don't believe government or courts should dictate what I call marriage or what anyone calls marriage. Also, because of Equal Protection, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow marriage to be sanctioned by government on the basis of sexuality. I believe it would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis, and the Constitution would support them.

You fit # 2.

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about this, who uses that consitutional argument...is in the late stages of marriage equality argument erosion. It's the last refuge for folks before they give up and say...."Oh screw it, it's okay I guess"

No, I don't fit #2 because I don't care what kind of sex other people have. As for "late stages" or whatever, I am on record with a sensible civil unions proposal which would give gay couples what they want.... and they already have marriage equality. I'm not using an argument to prevent gay couples from obtaining the benefits they want, I am suggesting a way that can be accomplished without having government redefine marriage for us.

What you are doing is rejecting my proposal and continuing with the vitriolic attacks on my character. It proves my earlier point that you aren't interested in resolving the issue because you get too much political mileage out of having it around. It lets you sit here and tee off on me, call me names, pretend I am homophobic and bigoted, liken me to racists, etc. That gets your rocks off and you don't want to give it up, even if it would help gay couples.

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

 

[Boss]

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

Because I don't want the government sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors.

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.

 

[toxicmedia]

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

Because I don't want the government sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors.

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.

You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?

 

[toxicmedia]

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

Because I don't want the government sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors.

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.

You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?

Maybe you do just plain think it's icky

 

[Seawytch]

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

Because I don't want the government sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors.

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.

The Rude Pundit

 

[Boss]

You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?

It deviates from the norm, therefore it is deviant. Again... don't care if you have deviant sex.