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

[kaz]

You know seawytch, when I try to make serious points about gay marriage, you don't address them and when I say fine, let's have an insult fest you whine to high heaven. You're a one trick pony, there is one political issue and one answer to you and you have no idea how to persuade anyone, you just demand it. Got it. But you're boring so I just wish you a good day.

- kaz

 

[SuMar]

What's funny is, gay folks really believe democrats are on their side...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Separate but equal?

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

What a terrible analogy

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

Those are not the complete criteria for deteriming if seperate but equal is unconstitutional, or else things like restroom facilities being seperate for men and women would be unconstitutional as well. Yet the homophilic lobby is not insisting on such change...yet.

 

[kaz]

What a terrible analogy

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

Those are not the complete criteria for deteriming if seperate but equal is unconstitutional, or else things like restroom facilities being seperate for men and women would be unconstitutional as well. Yet the homophilic lobby is not insisting on such change...yet.

World Watcher's analogy was ridiculous as you say. Blacks were treated differently than whites, they were forced to use separate facilities, go to different schools.

Gays and straights are actually subject to the same laws. Gays and straights can marry the same people. Both can marry someone of the opposite sex, neither can marry someone of the same sex. It's a ridiculous argument.

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

There are 9 States and The District of Columbia that allow Same-sex Civil Marriage, the majority of those legal entities that allow Civil Marriage have done so through actions of the legislature or through passage by ballot initiative.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

There are 9 States and The District of Columbia that allow Same-sex Civil Marriage, the majority of those legal entities that allow Civil Marriage have done so through actions of the legislature or through passage by ballot initiative.


>>>>

I agree, and that's fine. Except as you pointed out there were some judicial fiats in some of those States, that was as wrong as self appointed Federal dictators doing it. But if State legislatures pass it, fine. If the Federal Congress passes it for Federal purposes, then fine. It's judicial legislating that is wrong.

Personally I don't think marriage should be a government function at all. By "fine" I just men legal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

There are 9 States and The District of Columbia that allow Same-sex Civil Marriage, the majority of those legal entities that allow Civil Marriage have done so through actions of the legislature or through passage by ballot initiative.


>>>>

I agree, and that's fine. Except as you pointed out there were some judicial fiats in some of those States, that was as wrong as self appointed Federal dictators doing it. But if State legislatures pass it, fine. If the Federal Congress passes it for Federal purposes, then fine. It's judicial legislating that is wrong.

Personally I don't think marriage should be a government function at all. By "fine" I just men legal.

Could you be a little more specific of "don't think marriage should be a government function at all" means in the real world?

Are you saying that:

A. Civil Marriage and the rights, responsibilities, and benefits inherent of two non-related individuals establishing a family and legal relationship shouldn't exist - meaning that all of the (at last count 1,138 federal laws pertaining to Civil Marriage) and (assuming 300 laws per state + DC) 15,300 laws from subordinate legal entities would be wiped from the books?

or

B. Civil Marriage as a legal institution would still exist, it's just not the government that would perform the marriages that would then be legally recognized? In other words religious people (same-sex and different-sex) could go to a religious institution and be Religiously Married or go to a "Marriage Broker" (for want of a better term for non-religious people) get "married" and then local, state, and federal government entities would recognize that?​

>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What a terrible analogy

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

Those are not the complete criteria for deteriming if seperate but equal is unconstitutional, or else things like restroom facilities being seperate for men and women would be unconstitutional as well. Yet the homophilic lobby is not insisting on such change...yet.

You’ve got to be kidding…

 

[PaulS1950]

Gays can't accept "civil unions" because there are too many legal differences between a civil union and marriage.
You have every right not to understand or even not to like the idea but you do not have any power to deny anyone the right to marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

There are 9 States and The District of Columbia that allow Same-sex Civil Marriage, the majority of those legal entities that allow Civil Marriage have done so through actions of the legislature or through passage by ballot initiative.


>>>>

I agree, and that's fine. Except as you pointed out there were some judicial fiats in some of those States, that was as wrong as self appointed Federal dictators doing it. But if State legislatures pass it, fine. If the Federal Congress passes it for Federal purposes, then fine. It's judicial legislating that is wrong.

Personally I don't think marriage should be a government function at all. By "fine" I just men legal.

Nonsense.

There are no “self appointed Federal dictators.”

No one is ‘dictating’ anything to the states.

California has only itself to blame, the people of that state alone decided to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

This could all be avoided if California simply obeyed the 14th Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

Those are not the complete criteria for deteriming if seperate but equal is unconstitutional, or else things like restroom facilities being seperate for men and women would be unconstitutional as well. Yet the homophilic lobby is not insisting on such change...yet.

World Watcher's analogy was ridiculous as you say. Blacks were treated differently than whites, they were forced to use separate facilities, go to different schools.

Gays and straights are actually subject to the same laws. Gays and straights can marry the same people. Both can marry someone of the opposite sex, neither can marry someone of the same sex. It's a ridiculous argument.

The way to get gay marriage is through the legislature, not a judicial coup twisting words from the Constitution to justify legislation from the courts. Liberals do consistently look to take the easy way out, don't then? Change minds, work?, pass. Just have a judicial self appointed dictator decree it.

And when a state amends its constitution, which was the case with Proposition 8, eliminating the legislative option, same-sex couples, or any other adversely effective group, have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the courts.

Again, this was all avoidable.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

Those are not the complete criteria for deteriming if seperate but equal is unconstitutional, or else things like restroom facilities being seperate for men and women would be unconstitutional as well. Yet the homophilic lobby is not insisting on such change...yet.

You’ve got to be kidding…

I think he believes that "whatevers" not in the constitution is supposedly unconstitutional. Right? So cultural standards like separation between the sexes weren't put into the constitution, but are seen as common sense. Our founders wanted a little common sense. lol

 

[ScienceRocks]

Gays can't accept "civil unions" because there are too many legal differences between a civil union and marriage.
You have every right not to understand or even not to like the idea but you do not have any power to deny anyone the right to marry.

I'm starting to agree. I just want marriage to be defined as between consenting adults(can be any number). Simple as that.

Who are you to tell me not to have a dozen wife's?

 

[SuMar]

Gays can't accept "civil unions" because there are too many legal differences between a civil union and marriage.
You have every right not to understand or even not to like the idea but you do not have any power to deny anyone the right to marry.

Has anyone every wondered why Obama, who just happen to agrees with Romney during one of the debates, says gay marriage is a state issue and handled that way and not to be an issue with the Federal Government? Look at the whole big picture.

Here's a hint, has nothing to do with religious faith.

 

[buckeye45_73]

There are 9 States and The District of Columbia that allow Same-sex Civil Marriage, the majority of those legal entities that allow Civil Marriage have done so through actions of the legislature or through passage by ballot initiative.


>>>>

I agree, and that's fine. Except as you pointed out there were some judicial fiats in some of those States, that was as wrong as self appointed Federal dictators doing it. But if State legislatures pass it, fine. If the Federal Congress passes it for Federal purposes, then fine. It's judicial legislating that is wrong.

Personally I don't think marriage should be a government function at all. By "fine" I just men legal.

Nonsense.

There are no “self appointed Federal dictators.”

No one is ‘dictating’ anything to the states.

California has only itself to blame, the people of that state alone decided to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

This could all be avoided if California simply obeyed the 14th Amendment.

they didnt violate shit.....same sex couples havent been allowed to marry since.....er EVER. So no change dipshit.....look if you want to buttfuck your boyfriend, go ahead, but marriage is not for you....nor is it for a pedophile, necrophiliac, or incest......or maybe you support those????

 

[sfcalifornia]

I agree, and that's fine. Except as you pointed out there were some judicial fiats in some of those States, that was as wrong as self appointed Federal dictators doing it. But if State legislatures pass it, fine. If the Federal Congress passes it for Federal purposes, then fine. It's judicial legislating that is wrong.

Personally I don't think marriage should be a government function at all. By "fine" I just men legal.

Nonsense.

There are no “self appointed Federal dictators.”

No one is ‘dictating’ anything to the states.

California has only itself to blame, the people of that state alone decided to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

This could all be avoided if California simply obeyed the 14th Amendment.

they didnt violate shit.....same sex couples havent been allowed to marry since.....er EVER. So no change dipshit.....look if you want to buttfuck your boyfriend, go ahead, but marriage is not for you....nor is it for a pedophile, necrophiliac, or incest......or maybe you support those????

Every voter who voted in favor of Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS will agree. And when they invalidate Prop 8, gay people will begin to marry in California again. Since pedophilia, necrophilia and incest have nothing to do with the conversation, there's no need to bring them up.

 

[Toro]

Why can't Negroes accept "Separate but Equal" and be done with it?

 

[logical4u]

1. Allowing "civil unions" or REDEFINING marriage will bankrupt this nation, monetarily, if the benefits stand as they are. People that can legally give their gov't benefits to another (partner) will circumvent the laws for inheritance (so much for taxing the rich). SS benefits will be passed on to young adults that have chosen to play the system by legally joining their elderly benefactor (their does not have to be a "loving", intimate relationship). Same sex relatives will legally join to avoid inheritance taxes, and to scam social security benefits. Incest laws do not apply to same sex "couples".
2. Legally joining people for any other reason than "marriage" (in the traditional sense) will morally bankrupt this country. To avoid the above (see 1.), the gov't will either have to appoint witness panels (to verify the "union" was completed), or it will have to eliminate the benefits of marriage. That will hurt millions and millions of "children" that are dependent on married parents supporting them in a loving relationship where one parent is supported by the other during child-bearing and child-raising years. The benefits of the supporting spouse will not legally go to the other. People will become even more deceptive to get the benefits and support that is needed to raise a family, or families will simply not exist anymore. Children will be turned over to the "state" to be raised in a cold, unloving, calculating atmosphere where the gov't will be almighty and people will be part of the "collective" (so much for individuals).

Homosexuals are fully aware that their behavior is not "traditional" in any sense. Just like people that choose to have children out of wedlock, and raise those children on their own or in a "loving" relationship with a person they "choose" not to marry. I cannot understand how such a tiny percentage of the population wants to DESTROY the entire population, by demanding they are given "additional" privileges for choices that can be demonstrated to be immoral and unhealthy. In this country, you have a right to live within the laws as you please. You do not have a right to force a change onto society that will destroy the nation, and leave the "children" hopeless and bankrupt. Another sad testament in this country of personal "greed" over what is "best" for the community and country.

 

[kaz]

Could you be a little more specific of "don't think marriage should be a government function at all" means in the real world?

1) As you said, I would eliminate all current laws.

2) I would make a bunch of fixes that should already be done. The death tax is evil, no one should have to pay it. People are already having massive births out of marriage, parental legal rights/responsibilities should be clarified anyway. And that would assist eliminating "marriage" as a government function as well.

3) As for things like if a woman is quitting her job, the couple could have a contract. I love you honey, I'll raise our wonderful kids. On the other hand, if you leave me for your secretary you rat bastard, than I want half our pile and income for 10 years, or a third, or it all, or whatever they agree to. Of course they could amend it over time by agreement. That contract is what courts would enforce.

3) Marriages would be performed and recognized by whatever religion/association you like or just between you. So let's say you are Catholic. The Catholic church can say if you want a Catholic wedding, then you go to pre-marriage counseling, get the blessing of the church, etc as they do now. They could also have a Catholic wedding contract if they want one. It could be rigid or just require certain terms be included. If you want the Catholic wedding you agree, if you don't you pass and do your own, which they may chose not to recognize.

4) Contracts can be between any consenting adult who wants them. Man/woman, Man/man, whatever.

5) I am a strong believer in our having a "Federal" government, not what we have. I'm referring to the actual definition of the word, not how it's used today. Power divided is power checked. So I would not force but would favor States to following it. As for the Federal Government, all citizens should be treated the same, meaning there is no difference between any citizen regardless of marriage or other factors. We are individuals.

However, regarding the full faith and credit clause, I would require each State that does have "marriage" to be able to state their definition in a "contract" covering what their marriage entailed when the contract was signed. I phrase it that way because if the State changes their definition, the Federal government would not recognize the retroactive changes or require States to enforce those changes. When you marry, you should only change the agreement by choice of the parties involved. I would also require the States to honor each other's contracts so someone can't move out of State to get out of their agreement.

 

[Seawytch]

You know seawytch, when I try to make serious points about gay marriage, you don't address them and when I say fine, let's have an insult fest you whine to high heaven. You're a one trick pony, there is one political issue and one answer to you and you have no idea how to persuade anyone, you just demand it. Got it. But you're boring so I just wish you a good day.

- kaz

I must have missed the serious points. Can you summarize again or just permalink to them, because I would be more than happy to address them if they were, in fact made.

I've said two things that you would deem "insulting". I called you a hypocrite or a homophobe.

I would hardly call that an "insult fest". You, on the other hand, have utilized "Dyke" (oooh, ouch) and "bitch" (gosh, never heard that before), implied I don't have a brain and that I am a narcissist.

Now, you call me those things because I called you a hypocrite for being legally married while espousing the libertarian "get out of government" ideals...that you decided upon later in life, after enjoying the protections for many years.

Did you decide that government shouldn't be involved in marriage just about the same time that the gheys wanted in? That's when I noticed most people start espousing that idea...it hadn't occurred to them until then. Funny that?

Well, I've seen your insults and I've seen the condescending attitude you take when speaking of gay relationships and I just see someone else that wants to fill the pool instead of letting the gay kids swim.