Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

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.

Who is 'we'?

It is your idea- and you have no actual support for your idea.

If you want to sell your idea- then you best get busy. Because at the rate things are going, same gender marriage will likely be legal in another 10 states before the end of 2015.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

/QUOTE]

christ on a cracker- you no more care about children than you do about the Constitution.

Homosexuals can legally adopt children right now.

Preventing marriage only prevents adopted children from having legally married parents.

Of course you don't want homosexuals to be able to adopt either- because you only use children as a tool to attack homosexuals.

20,000 children a year age out of the foster care system because no one adopted them- you would prefer that those children end up living on the street rather than be adopted by a homosexual couple who will provide them with emotional and financial support for the rest of their lives.

And that is just sick.

 

[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 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.

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

It's not so much seeking to change anything but to help facilitate the hatred of same-sex couples.

 

[Ellipsis]

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

He wants to remove all the restrictions against marital status, blood relation, etc.

 

[Boss]

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

He wants to remove all the restrictions against marital status, blood relation, etc.

Nope. I want to remove government from the business of deciding what we can call marriage. From the government standpoint, you'd either have a contracted partner or not. You're free to call marriage whatever you want.

Both you and Czern are opposed to my idea because you seek to have our government dictate what we define as marriage. Syriusly thinks gay marriage will sweep the nation by next year, C_Clayton thinks the issue has been constitutionally settled matter of law... yet there are probably enough evangelicals alone to ratify a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

So I guess we're going to have to rumble. This is all going to have to come to a head and someone is going home unhappy. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.

 

[Ellipsis]

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

He wants to remove all the restrictions against marital status, blood relation, etc.

Nope. I want to remove government from the business of deciding what we can call marriage. From the government standpoint, you'd either have a contracted partner or not. You're free to call marriage whatever you want.

Both you and Czern are opposed to my idea because you seek to have our government dictate what we define as marriage. Syriusly thinks gay marriage will sweep the nation by next year, C_Clayton thinks the issue has been constitutionally settled matter of law... yet there are probably enough evangelicals alone to ratify a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

So I guess we're going to have to rumble. This is all going to have to come to a head and someone is going home unhappy. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.

....and then Boss stomped his foot and slammed the door.

 

[Czernobog]

You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right? People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality. People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality. So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?

He wants to remove all the restrictions against marital status, blood relation, etc.

Nope. I want to remove government from the business of deciding what we can call marriage. From the government standpoint, you'd either have a contracted partner or not. You're free to call marriage whatever you want.

Both you and Czern are opposed to my idea because you seek to have our government dictate what we define as marriage. Syriusly thinks gay marriage will sweep the nation by next year, C_Clayton thinks the issue has been constitutionally settled matter of law... yet there are probably enough evangelicals alone to ratify a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

So I guess we're going to have to rumble. This is all going to have to come to a head and someone is going home unhappy. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.

They don't now - or, at least, they didn't before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition. And guess what? One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be back to the government not telling us what marriage is. Problem solved.

But, you see, that's not really what you want. You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman". However, since you can see that that obviously is not going to happen, now you're looking for any way possible to keep the verbiage you added in the law. Well, sucks to be you. You lost this fight. Better luck next time. By the next Presidential election, those stupid laws will be struck down in all 50 states, and everyone can go back to calling marriage whatever the hell they would like to call it, and gay people will be able to enjoy the exact same benefits as straight people.

Thank you for playing.

 

[Silhouette]

They don't now - or, at least, they didn't before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition. And guess what? One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be back to the government not telling us what marriage is. Problem solved.

Actually, it's more like "problem just begun"...

"More importantly and to the legal point, forcing states to allow gay marriage is forcing a state to incentivize a home where 100% of the time, one of the natural parents of children in it is missing. It incentivizes homes where children will never get experience with the opposite gender as a parent to them.

It incentivizes a home where a child who happens to be the opposite gender of the "gay parents" learns to see him or herself as "unnecessary as part of a family unit". That self-image a child may carry into his adult life. The child internalizes this message as YOU are unnecessary. They lack the nuances of adults in understanding complex and weird arrangements. They tend to see things in black and white. Things that are obvious.

Marriage is to be considered on behalf of children FIRST and adults second. In that order. And that is because children cannot vote or hire powerful lobbiests to promote their welfare in this legal battle, this question. So judges have to err on the side of caution where they and the state's rights to protect them are concerned.

Also, with gay marriage will come gay lawsuits against christian charity orphanages. It's already starting where these orphanages have seen the writing on the wall and are closing their doors to these unfortunate kids, after 100s of years of being in the business of caring for their welbeing. This means that secular orphanages will open, where "openly gay" people will be running them, guaranteed. See my signature or a gay pride parade near you for why this is an imminent danger to children."

 

[Czernobog]

They don't now - or, at least, they didn't before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition. And guess what? One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be back to the government not telling us what marriage is. Problem solved.

Actually, it's more like "problem just begun"...

"More importantly and to the legal point, forcing states to allow gay marriage is forcing a state to incentivize a home where 100% of the time, one of the natural parents of children in it is missing....

Again...I stopped reading right here. So long as you live in a world where Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian, the octomom, and this lady:

are all perfectly acceptable parenting options, just because they happen to fuck the right gender partner for your taste, you have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to discussing what is healthy for bringing up children.

Come talk to me when you have cleaned up your side of the street, then you might have something to say about raising children that is worthwhile listening to.

Buh bye.

 

[Boss]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

 

[Syriusly]

[. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.

You have presented an alternative that you claim gives everyone what they want.

There is no indication that people from either side of the marriage equality would agree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

Well I believe you have the right to advocate for any Constitutional Amendment you want to- I won't wish you luck- but I think that it clearly shows what you really want.

You could have been advocating for a Constitutional Amendment for what you claim is your real preference- but instead you advocate for a Constitutional Amendment for what you really want.

You are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[Syriusly]

They don't now - or, at least, they didn't before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition. And guess what? One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be back to the government not telling us what marriage is. Problem solved.

Actually, it's more like "problem just begun"...

"More importantly and to the legal point, forcing states to allow gay marriage is forcing a state to incentivize a home where 100% of the time, one of the natural parents of children in it is missing.."

Ah once again from bat guano crazy.....

a) There are no laws that require married people to have children.
b) There are no laws that require parents to get married.
c) There are no laws that require married parents to stay together.
d) There are not even any laws that require a non-custodial 'natural' parent to even 'parent'.

When I see any of the homophobes actually concerned about the majority of children- rather than using children as a method to discriminate against homosexuals- then I will believe that they might actually care about kids.

But the reality is the problem is with parents- parents who abandon their children, parents who divorce and neglect their children, parents who abuse their children.

And the majority by far of those parents are heterosexual, 'natural' parents.

That is not an attack on heterosexual parents- I am one myself- but I am pointing out the reality- complaining about 'gay parenting' doesn't accomplish a thing to protect the vast majority of children in America

 

[Seawytch]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

you couldn't get that passed back in the early 2000s, no way in hell it would pass now. Suck it up, it's over. The tipping point has been WAY tipped.

 

[mdk]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

What makes you think the GOP has the clout to even get such an amendment passed? Even if they did have the political capital I highly doubt they would spend it on such an issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

What makes you think the GOP has the clout to even get such an amendment passed? Even if they did have the political capital I highly doubt they would spend it on such an issue.

They might have been able to do so 10 years ago- but not a chance they would now.

The effort would take over their platform, and would be doomed to failure.

 

[mdk]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

What makes you think the GOP has the clout to even get such an amendment passed? Even if they did have the political capital I highly doubt they would spend it on such an issue.

They might have been able to do so 10 years ago- but not a chance they would now.

The effort would take over their platform, and would be doomed to failure.

They couldn't even get that done ten years ago when gay marriage and civil unions bans were in fashion. The GOP is powerless concerning this issue. It is a losing issue for them now. The anti-gay folks will gnash their teeth and whine but the rest of the nation will shrug their shoulders, sigh, and move on with their lives. They are becoming a minority so I suspect them to become more rabid as this issue progresses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
So be it.
Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.”

This makes no sense and is unsurprisingly ignorant.

There is no “your solution,” there is only settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from denying American citizens equal protection of (equal access to) the law absent a rational basis, objective documented evidence in support, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end. Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate fail to meet those three criteria, and are un-Constitutional accordingly.

Consequently, there is nothing to 'amend,' as the Constitution affords protections to all classes of persons including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, where gay Americans are among the many other protected classes of persons.

Boss said:

“Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.”

And this is an example of the unwarranted animus toward gay Americans the Constitution prohibits, where such a desire to disadvantage same-sex couples is irrational, devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and fails to pursue a proper legislative end, seeking only to make gay Americans “unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.

So be it.

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.

That boat sailed already, a Constitutional Amendment was tried and failed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2013. It couldn't even pass a decade ago when there was more support than there is now.


>>>>