Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Seawytch]

They want to be able to force, FORCE, churches, etc, to have ceremonies, any that refuse will be sued into the ground.


This never had anything to do with equality, at least not to the puppet masters.

Uhh, what does legalized gay marriage have to do with forcing churches to have ceremonies?

There are TONS of churches and religious communities that will openly accept and marry gays.

They don't need your pretentious stick up their evil little asshole church.

That's pretty naive.. You KNOW people sue even when they KNOW they will not be served. That's why photographers and bakeries and all those folks get sued right now if they try to refuse to serve. And there are gay folks out there who are LOOKING for an opportunity to draw legal blood.

Those are public accommodation laws and have NOTHING to do with civil marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Human Rights Campaign

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Because LGBT have an agenda.

And can you paraphrase this "agenda" for us?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why is it nobody is doing anything to "get Gubmint out of marriage" like they say they want to and only talk about it when "the gheys" want in?

Because if you treat marraige only under contract law that defines things like spouses, beneficiaries, powers of attorney, etc --- there would be no special "gay" class. Only the literal interpretation of those contracts. I like the idea --- because gays can have any right they want TODAY by signing the appropriate paperwork.. Problem is --- it's NOT good enough for the movement extremists -- who want to hijack marraige as a trophy to shove in the face of those who don't condone their lifestyle choices.

We SHOULD get "gubermint" out of it. But that would end the vendetta.

This makes no sense.

Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment, would in no way ‘hijack’ marriage; indeed, same-sex couples wish to preserve marriage exactly as it is, unaltered, and have their unions recognized for exactly what they are: marriages.

Also, there’s no ‘getting government out of marriage,’ that’s idiocy. The states write the marriage law, which is administered by state courts.

I thought you were smart, but I overestimated your grasp on logic and reason I suppose.

It would be hijacking if MOST of those State-Crafted laws currently define marriage as between a man and woman and/or disallow same sex marriage wouldn't it?

So if these laws must be re-written. There is nothing evil about ADDING a descriptive term for a gay nuptial coupling. And leaving the PREVIOUSLY TESTED and accepted definition of marriage as it is...

Might even be advantageous to the Gay Couple who face the dilemma of wanting sex reassignment six years into the Pairrage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

They want to be able to force, FORCE, churches, etc, to have ceremonies, any that refuse will be sued into the ground.


This never had anything to do with equality, at least not to the puppet masters.

No one has said anything about forcing churches to perform same sex marriage, but many churches already do.

True.

Equal protection doctrine applies only to public sector lawmaking entities, states, cities, counties, etc. Private sector entities such as religious organizations are free to deny marriage to same-sex couples, per their First Amendment right to freedom of association.

To suggest otherwise is either ignorance or an attempt to cloud the issue with irrelevant demagoguery.

 

[Noomi]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

 

[Seawytch]

Because if you treat marraige only under contract law that defines things like spouses, beneficiaries, powers of attorney, etc --- there would be no special "gay" class. Only the literal interpretation of those contracts. I like the idea --- because gays can have any right they want TODAY by signing the appropriate paperwork.. Problem is --- it's NOT good enough for the movement extremists -- who want to hijack marraige as a trophy to shove in the face of those who don't condone their lifestyle choices.

We SHOULD get "gubermint" out of it. But that would end the vendetta.

This makes no sense.

Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment, would in no way ‘hijack’ marriage; indeed, same-sex couples wish to preserve marriage exactly as it is, unaltered, and have their unions recognized for exactly what they are: marriages.

Also, there’s no ‘getting government out of marriage,’ that’s idiocy. The states write the marriage law, which is administered by state courts.

I thought you were smart, but I overestimated your grasp on logic and reason I suppose.

It would be hijacking if MOST of those State-Crafted laws currently define marriage as between a man and woman and/or disallow same sex marriage wouldn't it?

So if these laws must be re-written. There is nothing evil about ADDING a descriptive term for a gay nuptial coupling. And leaving the PREVIOUSLY TESTED and accepted definition of marriage as it is...

Might even be advantageous to the Gay Couple who face the dilemma of wanting sex reassignment six years into the Pairrage.

There were many State-Crafted laws prohibiting the mixing of the races too. Damn activist judges FORCED states to re-write laws and messed with the accepted definition of marriage.

"In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

 

[Meister]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Meister]

troll much?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Noomi]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

That would mean that anyone who gets married in Vegas is not really married, but they are. Marriages are not traditionally performed in churches anymore.

 

[Meister]

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

That would mean that anyone who gets married in Vegas is not really married, but they are. Marriages are not traditionally performed in churches anymore.

If it's outside of a church in Vegas, it's a civil union.
If a man and woman decide to marry in a church, it's a marriage.

 

[Noomi]

'One man, one woman for life' - I assume anyone who agrees with that statement is also opposed to divorce?

 

[Noomi]

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

That would mean that anyone who gets married in Vegas is not really married, but they are. Marriages are not traditionally performed in churches anymore.

If it's outside of a church in Vegas, it's a civil union.
If a man and woman decide to marry in a church, it's a marriage.

If you are married in Vegas, its recognised as a marriage, not a civil union.

 

[Meister]

'One man, one woman for life' - I assume anyone who agrees with that statement is also opposed to divorce?

Funny how "free will" screws things up, huh?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

Churches perform ceremonies for gays too ya know. That arrangement, however, works fine for me. (PSSST...we're still gonna call it married, though..."I just got Civil Unioned" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Human Rights Campaign

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Because LGBT have an agenda.

And can you paraphrase this "agenda" for us?

Your ‘agenda’ is to realize your civil liberties.

How dare you.

 

[Seawytch]

'One man, one woman for life' - I assume anyone who agrees with that statement is also opposed to divorce?

Funny how "free will" screws things up, huh?

So you should have the "free will" to divorce, but gays can't have the "free will" to legally marry?

 

[Meister]

That would mean that anyone who gets married in Vegas is not really married, but they are. Marriages are not traditionally performed in churches anymore.

If it's outside of a church in Vegas, it's a civil union.
If a man and woman decide to marry in a church, it's a marriage.

If you are married in Vegas, its recognised as a marriage, not a civil union.

Your point?
I'm just giving you what was presented in this thread that both sides had some common ground...I don't feel that the government should be in the marriage business, but could be in the civil union business, where all would have equal rights.
Marriage be with the church and the same equal rights between a man and a woman. But, that IS MY opinion.

 

[Noomi]

If it's outside of a church in Vegas, it's a civil union.
If a man and woman decide to marry in a church, it's a marriage.

If you are married in Vegas, its recognised as a marriage, not a civil union.

Your point?
I'm just giving you what was presented in this thread that both sides had some common ground...I don't feel that the government should be in the marriage business, but could be in the civil union business, where all would have equal rights.
Marriage be with the church and the same equal rights between a man and a woman. But, that IS MY opinion.

Homosexuals will never be able to marry if the church keeps hold of marriage, as they constantly discriminate.

Get rid of marriage and have civil unions. Then everyone is equal - but you wait for the heterosexuals to start bitching.