Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Silhouette]

Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage. Why do you?

For the sake of the children involved or mandated to be legally adopted out to them once the ink is dry...

 

[Czernobog]

Ah! Well, then! When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?

I don't care what gays call it, as long as I don't have to call it that and as long as the government isn't telling me I have to call it that.

That's just it. The government isn't telling you what you have to call it; only what it is going to recognise it as for the purpose of the benefits that come with the partnership known as marriage.

Now, obviously, if you happen to be the administrator of a hospital, then the government is telling you, regardless of what you want to call it, that the husband of this man on life support has the exact same right to decide what treatment he gets as the wife of the man who is on life support in the next room.

That's all the government is telling you. The government doesn't give a rats ass what you call the partnership - they consider it a marriage, and give the participants all of the considerations accordingly. They do not require you to call it anything.

Again... My solution remedies the hospital situation. As long as you have the civil union contract, you are the civil partner. Where this has been an issue is in states not recognizing gay marriage, where a gay partner is not given consideration because the hospital is legally obligated to give that consideration to "spouse" or next of kin. If there is no spouse, they can't consider anything but next of kin. The CU contract takes care of that, the CU partner is effectively the spouse.

Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU. straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like. and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal". Sorry, you're a hypocrite.

 

[Boss]

Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU. straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like. and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal". Sorry, you're a hypocrite.

No, that's not what I proposed or what I said I wanted. There would no longer be "marriage licenses" at all... NONE... they no longer exist... got it? Are we clear on that? In the place of those, the governments would ONLY issue contracts to any two consenting parties of legal age.

Now... In the case of people who are ALREADY married, who ALREADY have a "marriage license" whether it's a relatively new Gay Marriage license or the old fashioned regular ones, THOSE people would not have to go to the courthouse and obtain some new CU contract to remain "married" to each other, we would simply "grandfather" those people in, and their "marriage license" would become de facto "civil union contracts" for the purpose of this transition. That's the ONLY case you'd have something different, and it would ONLY be to accomodate those who already have a marriage license. Have I made this clear enough now?

 

[Czernobog]

Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage. Why do you?

For the sake of the children involved or mandated to be legally adopted out to them once the ink is dry...

Really??? You wanna take the "moral high ground" as a heterosexual, "for the children"? Shall I post the pictures of Britney Spears? How about Newt Gingrich, and his multiple marriages? Or maybe John McCain? You know, if you're that worried about children being raised in a morally questionable atmosphere, I think you might wanna start a little closer to home than the homosexual community.

 

[Boss]

For the sake of the children involved or mandated to be legally adopted out to them once the ink is dry...

Let me address the issue of adoption here, since it hasn't been mentioned in this argument. Adoption agencies are not bound by any standard when it comes to "married" or not, they evaluate potential adoptive parents (or parent) to determine suitability. That would not change. If a same-sex couple wanted to adopt, they would have to meet the criteria of the agency like everyone else. The fact that they had a CU contract would have no bearing, just as the fact that someone has a "marriage license" has no bearing now.

 

[Ellipsis]

Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

Or marital status. Martial Status is currently one of the federaly protected classes and no, private entities cannot discriminate against you on the basis of your marital statues. This comes into play most with fair housing disputes, but also occasionally arises in employment discrimination when an employer wants someone with fewer personal obligations, or when the employer doesn't want to pay a higher share of insurance for a family plan vs a single plan for an unmarried applicant.

"Get the government out of marriage" is the elimination of a Federaly protected class.

 

[Czernobog]

Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU. straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like. and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal". Sorry, you're a hypocrite.

No, that's not what I proposed or what I said I wanted. There would no longer be "marriage licenses" at all... NONE... they no longer exist... got it? Are we clear on that? In the place of those, the governments would ONLY issue contracts to any two consenting parties of legal age.

Now... In the case of people who are ALREADY married, who ALREADY have a "marriage license" whether it's a relatively new Gay Marriage license or the old fashioned regular ones, THOSE people would not have to go to the courthouse and obtain some new CU contract to remain "married" to each other, we would simply "grandfather" those people in, and their "marriage license" would become de facto "civil union contracts" for the purpose of this transition. That's the ONLY case you'd have something different, and it would ONLY be to accomodate those who already have a marriage license. Have I made this clear enough now?

Then you are suggesting exactly what I said you are, and you insisted you weren't:

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

Marriages won't fall under any kind of civil contracts, because, as far as secular, civil society is concerned, they don't exist. Sure, you can call your arrangement with your female life partner a "marriage" all you want. Guess what? Without a Civil Union Contract, that partnership is meaningless. Marriage would be relegated to the same irrelevance as baptism, or confirmation - it only has meaning within the church. I have no problem with that. Like I have repeatedly said; go ahead, and get the theocrats, and moralists to agree to that. Lemme know how it works out for ya.

 

[Ellipsis]

Again... My solution remedies the hospital situation. As long as you have the civil union contract, you are the civil partner. Where this has been an issue is in states not recognizing gay marriage, where a gay partner is not given consideration because the hospital is legally obligated to give that consideration to "spouse" or next of kin. If there is no spouse, they can't consider anything but next of kin. The CU contract takes care of that, the CU partner is effectively the spouse.

Hospitals have always been governed by private policy and that policy has traditionally been in favor of anyone the patient wants to see. The rare exeptions pro-SSM brought to the spotlight are of patients in critical care, and then the actions of one employee just being a dick, not the Hospital's official action.

Also, please understand that hospitals today retain the right to deny anyone they want. That you're married to the patient gives you no special pass. The hospital can deny you, the patient can deny you, and the indivigual doctor has the final word on any visitors.

 

[Boss]

Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

Or marital status. Martial Status is currently one of the federaly protected classes and no, private entities cannot discriminate against you on the basis of your marital statues. This comes into play most with fair housing disputes, but also occasionally arises in employment discrimination when an employer wants someone with fewer personal obligations, or when the employer doesn't want to pay a higher share of insurance for a family plan vs a single plan for an unmarried applicant.

"Get the government out of marriage" is the elimination of a Federaly protected class.

No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses. So anything that legally binds to "marriage" now, would become bound by "CU contract" then. Private entities CAN discriminate, as Czern said, on ANY basis. A "private entity" is an individual or a club or organization. A business or corporation is a public entity, and in most cases, they can discriminate as well, as long as it's not violating the CRA. The CRA does not protect marital class.

 

[Ellipsis]

No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses.

The existing license is a contract. Replacing it with an identical contract of a different name changes nothing but the name. Whatever grievences you claim under the existing contract will continue to exist under your new contract.

All you're doing is changing the name and that's a complete waste of time & money.

The CRA does not protect marital class.

The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Boss]

Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU. straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like. and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal". Sorry, you're a hypocrite.

No, that's not what I proposed or what I said I wanted. There would no longer be "marriage licenses" at all... NONE... they no longer exist... got it? Are we clear on that? In the place of those, the governments would ONLY issue contracts to any two consenting parties of legal age.

Now... In the case of people who are ALREADY married, who ALREADY have a "marriage license" whether it's a relatively new Gay Marriage license or the old fashioned regular ones, THOSE people would not have to go to the courthouse and obtain some new CU contract to remain "married" to each other, we would simply "grandfather" those people in, and their "marriage license" would become de facto "civil union contracts" for the purpose of this transition. That's the ONLY case you'd have something different, and it would ONLY be to accommodate those who already have a marriage license. Have I made this clear enough now?

Then you are suggesting exactly what I said you are, and you insisted you weren't:

No, you said I was calling for "separate but equal" and that is wrong. I've not said or implied any such thing. People would still get married. Churches would still perform weddings. Even GAY weddings, if they wanted to. The only thing that changes is government recognition of the civil domestic partnership. Married people are civil partners already, they don't need a new document to confirm that. If you are already married, nothing changes. Your marriage isn't dissolved or rendered meaningless. Your old marriage license simply becomes a de facto civil union contract. Any FUTURE marriage would have to obtain a CU contract instead of a marriage license. The CU contract would be available to people who wanted to get married, whether gay or straight, or just two people who wanted to enter into a partnership with each other for whatever reason. Government would make no delineation on that.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

Marriages won't fall under any kind of civil contracts, because, as far as secular, civil society is concerned, they don't exist. Sure, you can call your arrangement with your female life partner a "marriage" all you want. Guess what? Without a Civil Union Contract, that partnership is meaningless. Marriage would be relegated to the same irrelevance as baptism, or confirmation - it only has meaning within the church. I have no problem with that. Like I have repeatedly said; go ahead, and get the theocrats, and moralists to agree to that. Lemme know how it works out for ya.

Again, you are trying to complicate this and distort what I've proposed. Civil society would certainly still recognize marriage. We're not talking about what society does, we're talking about GOVERNMENT. No one is talking about making marriage irrelevant. Government would no longer issue a "marriage license" and would issue a "civil union contract" in place of that. Already existing marriage licenses would simply become CU contracts in the eyes of government. No one has to "give up" anything.

 

[Ellipsis]

Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU. straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like. and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal". Sorry, you're a hypocrite.

No, that's not what I proposed or what I said I wanted. There would no longer be "marriage licenses" at all... NONE... they no longer exist... got it? Are we clear on that? In the place of those, the governments would ONLY issue contracts to any two consenting parties of legal age.

Now... In the case of people who are ALREADY married, who ALREADY have a "marriage license" whether it's a relatively new Gay Marriage license or the old fashioned regular ones, THOSE people would not have to go to the courthouse and obtain some new CU contract to remain "married" to each other, we would simply "grandfather" those people in, and their "marriage license" would become de facto "civil union contracts" for the purpose of this transition. That's the ONLY case you'd have something different, and it would ONLY be to accommodate those who already have a marriage license. Have I made this clear enough now?

Then you are suggesting exactly what I said you are, and you insisted you weren't:

No, you said I was calling for "separate but equal" and that is wrong. I've not said or implied any such thing. People would still get married. Churches would still perform weddings. Even GAY weddings, if they wanted to. The only thing that changes is government recognition of the civil domestic partnership. Married people are civil partners already, they don't need a new document to confirm that. If you are already married, nothing changes. Your marriage isn't dissolved or rendered meaningless. Your old marriage license simply becomes a de facto civil union contract. Any FUTURE marriage would have to obtain a CU contract instead of a marriage license. The CU contract would be available to people who wanted to get married, whether gay or straight, or just two people who wanted to enter into a partnership with each other for whatever reason. Government would make no delineation on that.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

Marriages won't fall under any kind of civil contracts, because, as far as secular, civil society is concerned, they don't exist. Sure, you can call your arrangement with your female life partner a "marriage" all you want. Guess what? Without a Civil Union Contract, that partnership is meaningless. Marriage would be relegated to the same irrelevance as baptism, or confirmation - it only has meaning within the church. I have no problem with that. Like I have repeatedly said; go ahead, and get the theocrats, and moralists to agree to that. Lemme know how it works out for ya.

Again, you are trying to complicate this and distort what I've proposed. Civil society would certainly still recognize marriage. We're not talking about what society does, we're talking about GOVERNMENT. No one is talking about making marriage irrelevant. Government would no longer issue a "marriage license" and would issue a "civil union contract" in place of that. Already existing marriage licenses would simply become CU contracts in the eyes of government. No one has to "give up" anything.

Again, all you're doing is changeing the name. I don't see what that's supposed to accomplish.

 

[Boss]

No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses.

The existing license is a contract. Replacing it with an identical contract of a different name changes nothing but the name. Whatever grievences you claim under the existing contract will continue to exist under your new contract.

The CRA does not protect marital class.

The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.

Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license. OR... if you were a person caring for an aging parent, or two spinster sisters, you could get a CU contract and form a domestic partnership for tax reasons or insurance, etc. OR.... if you were a gay couple wanting to play house... whatever the fuck you wanted to do in your domestic partnership, the government wouldn't care. The CU contract would be all-inclusive, regardless of the nature of the relationship.

The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.

I'm sorry but this doesn't even make sense to me. The CRA does NOT protect marital status.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

[Boss]

Again, all you're doing is changeing the name. I don't see what that's supposed to accomplish.

It removes government from the role of determining what individuals define as marriage. It allows churches and religious people to maintain the sanctity of traditional marriage. It allows gay couples the "rights and benefits" they seek as domestic partners. In essence, it resolves this issue once and for all, and we all get what we want. And that's what it accomplishes.

 

[Ellipsis]

Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license. OR... if you were a person caring for an aging parent, or two spinster sisters, you could get a CU contract and form a domestic partnership for tax reasons or insurance, etc.
OR.... if you were a gay couple wanting to play house... whatever the fuck you wanted to do in your domestic partnership, the government wouldn't care. The CU contract would be all-inclusive, regardless of the nature of the relationship.

The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.

I'm sorry but this doesn't even make sense to me. The CRA does NOT protect marital status.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

So you basicaly just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging open-marriage under a diferent name will acomplish that.

Isn't what you're advocating exactly the slippery-slope social Conservatives say would happen, and social Liberals deny would happen?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

'Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license.'

Which would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as 'separate but equal' is still repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

So you basicaly just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging open-marriage under a diferent name will acomplish that.

Isn't what you're advocating exactly the slippery-slope social Conservatives say would happen, and social Liberals deny would happen?

For me, "marriage" is forever and always going to be the holy union of a husband and wife. Nothing else. That said, I am not intolerant of the views other people hold on this issue. I do not believe government has the right to establish what we call marriage, gay or traditional. I don't believe anyone has the right to use government and courts to impose their views on the rest of society, whether they are religious people wanting traditional marriage only or gay people wanting gay marriage.

Now I don't know what you mean by "open-marriage" ...that term doesn't make sense to me. The government has no reason to know the nature of our personal relationships. If we need to have some kind of distinction between people who are single and people who are domestic couples, the CU contract fulfills that need without regard for the nature of the relationship itself. And that's how it should be. Let the people decide for themselves what "marriage" is. CU contracts would not be available to multiple parties, if you already have an existing contract you couldn't obtain another. They wouldn't apply to children or animals, or anyone not consenting. And most importantly, they wouldn't be issued on basis of sexual behavior or intimacy of the relationship. The BONUS is, these contracts could be useful for a variety of situations unrelated to "marriage" or intimate relationships. Like I said, a person caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, to platonic buddies, momma and her 34-year-old son... whatever! As long as it's two consenting adults who don't already have a civil partnership. "Divorce" would become "contract dissolution" and handled much the same as it currently is.

 

[Boss]

Boss said:

'Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license.'

Which would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as 'separate but equal' is still repugnant to the Constitution.

There is no separate but equal, and I don't know where everyone is getting that here. Can you fucking explain this to me? There wouldn't be TWO different things! There would ONLY BE CU CONTRACTS! All current "marriage licenses" would instantly *POOF* into CU contracts! I don't fucking know how to explain that any differently. I'm not trying to say that people could still go get a goddamn marriage license just like they always have! Marriage licenses would no longer exist... so WHAT THE FUCK is "separate" about it?

I mean.... seriously people... we're not going to dissolve 100 million marriages all over the country, gay and traditional, and make people have to go to the courthouse and get a new CU contract so they won't be "livin' in sin!" We simply say that all current marriage licenses are de facto CU contracts, and that's that. DONE! Any NEW domestic partnerships, whether traditional marriage, gay marriage or platonic buddyhood, would need to get a CU contract... or NOT, just like, some people don't opt to get a marriage license now.

We're talking about a change in how government recognizes the domestic partnership. That's all. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or Equal Protection.

 

[Ellipsis]

For me, "marriage" is....

Subjective definitions are meaningles. We're discussing public policy.

Now I don't know what you mean by "open-marriage" ...that term doesn't make sense to me.

I had said "anyone can marry anyone".

The government has no reason to know the nature of our personal relationships.

The government's interest in marriage is the raising & socializing of children, and promoting stable relationships. Both affect economic and domestic health and stability. If you don't want to involve the government in your union then just don't get a marriage license.

If we need to have some kind of distinction between people who are single and people who are domestic couples, the CU contract fulfills that need without regard for the nature of the relationship itself. And that's how it should be. Let the people decide for themselves what "marriage" is. CU contracts would not be available to multiple parties, if you already have an existing contract you couldn't obtain another. They wouldn't apply to children or animals, or anyone not consenting. And most importantly, they wouldn't be issued on basis of sexual behavior or intimacy of the relationship. The BONUS is, these contracts could be useful for a variety of situations unrelated to "marriage" or intimate relationships. Like I said, a person caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, to platonic buddies, momma and her 34-year-old son... whatever! As long as it's two consenting adults who don't already have a civil partnership. "Divorce" would become "contract dissolution" and handled much the same as it currently is.

So again you just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging marriage under a diferent name will accomplish that.

How is that not exactly what social conservatives have been warning of all these years?

 

[Syriusly]

And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage..

There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all.

And marriage is not defined by sexual behavior.

The Supreme Court has not ruled yet- but multiple Federal Courts have- and SINCE the Supreme Court declined to overturn the lower courts rulings, in 31 states, laws against same gender marriage have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

You can stamp your feet and complain about it, but the only legal recourse you have is to get change the Constitution.

That is called the Amendment process.