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

[Darkwind]

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

Our Country is setup to protect the minority rights.

Yes, if society wants to redefine marriage as they did for instance in the 1950's when interracial marriage was against the law, then this is exactly what will be done.

In order for any social change to be made the attitude and a collective group will back it up.

If the majority does not back it then the court will hear the case to decide if a minority right is being violated in accordance with how the law defines it.

If marriage is only a religious formality then why hasn't religious people protested courthouse marriages done for non religious heterosexuals?

I don't know who teaches people these things.

This country is NOT set up to protect minority rights. That is such a silly notion that is should be self evident. No minority runs to the courts and says we need more rights because we are minorities. People go to the courts to be treated equally under the law. They receive this equality by the Constitution, but they do not receive an equality that harms the rights of others.

I will not entertain the phony argument of civil rights for blacks when discussing a merit of contract law between two individuals. Marriage has no standing with regard to civil rights and is wholly in the domain of contractual law. To make a case for marriage between gays or hetero as compared to the struggle of blacks is offensive.

In order for social change to occur, the majority of the society has to agree. If they do not, then the minority either has to work harder to change the values of those who disagree, or do what the democrats do now and indoctrinate the young and wait for them to come of age to effect that change. The problem here is that people no longer wish to work for the things they value and instead, just want to use the courts as a cudgel to beat those who disagree with their "I want change and I want it now" mentality.

Your last question has a pretty obvious answer. They are not threatened by people who get married in the courthouse.

Can the same be said for those who want to usurp marriage?

 

[g5000]

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.

Whichever particular brand of religion you belong to, your church does not have the patent on marriage.

The day married people and churches allowed the government to take over marriage, you gave up all control over the matter.

You don't get to define marriage. Too late to whine about it now.

There were other bigots who were very unhappy when marriage was "redefined" to include marriages of people of opposite races. They had decided to define marriage as "two people of the same race". And they stood on precedence, history, tradition, and a stack of Bibles, too. Just like all of you anti-gay bigots do.

Thankfully, they and you don't get to define marriage any more. You don't get to inflict inequality and take other people's freedoms away from them any more just because you have (had) superior numbers.

 

[Michelle420]

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

Our Country is setup to protect the minority rights.

Yes, if society wants to redefine marriage as they did for instance in the 1950's when interracial marriage was against the law, then this is exactly what will be done.

In order for any social change to be made the attitude and a collective group will back it up.

If the majority does not back it then the court will hear the case to decide if a minority right is being violated in accordance with how the law defines it.

If marriage is only a religious formality then why hasn't religious people protested courthouse marriages done for non religious heterosexuals?

I don't know who teaches people these things.

This country is NOT set up to protect minority rights. That is such a silly notion that is should be self evident. No minority runs to the courts and says we need more rights because we are minorities. People go to the courts to be treated equally under the law. They receive this equality by the Constitution, but they do not receive an equality that harms the rights of others.

I will not entertain the phony argument of civil rights for blacks when discussing a merit of contract law between two individuals. Marriage has no standing with regard to civil rights and is wholly in the domain of contractual law. To make a case for marriage between gays or hetero as compared to the struggle of blacks is offensive.

In order for social change to occur, the majority of the society has to agree. If they do not, then the minority either has to work harder to change the values of those who disagree, or do what the democrats do now and indoctrinate the young and wait for them to come of age to effect that change. The problem here is that people no longer wish to work for the things they value and instead, just want to use the courts as a cudgel to beat those who disagree with their "I want change and I want it now" mentality.

Your last question has a pretty obvious answer. They are not threatened by people who get married in the courthouse.

Can the same be said for those who want to usurp marriage?

Our legal system adopts the Kantian philosophy, it's that whole innocent until proven guilty.

It protects the human being from lynch mob mentality, in other words it doesn't matter if the whole town wants to persecute you, every citizen has the right to be heard and the courts will determine guilt or innocence.

The court will determine whether a right has been violated.

In that way the minority is protected from any majority that otherwise might violate someones rights.

 

[Darkwind]

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

I don't follow your argument at all. You are complaining over the government having to change the design of a few forms to administrate the same thing....in an age where we waste untold billions making sure every document in our government is written in every conceivable language on the planet?

Don't follow? It's called efficiency. There's no reason for us to have two 'marriage' institutions that are exactly the same in every single way except for the name on the top of the form; let's just streamline that into one.

It's not going to be a heavy hitter when it comes to the budget, but if you have waste it makes sense to get rid of it no matter how small (just like in business).

.

If efficiency is your concern, would it not be more efficient to not have gay marriage, civil unions and the entire debate? After all, it is a return to the status quo and therefore, costs us nothing.

I have seen many, many people compromise their position on gay marriage and accept that government has no role in deciding who loves who and what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes.

I have not seen any compromise or giving of ground by the gay movement at all to these reasonable concessions.

Why should anyone move any further toward the issue?

After all, these are real people, who have real and legitimate moral objections, making generous concessions in the hopes of finding a resolution to the problem.

What do they get for their trouble? Name calling, threats on their lives and outright hate mongering.

Is it any wonder that this country is so deeply divided?

 

[Darkwind]

Our Country is setup to protect the minority rights.

Yes, if society wants to redefine marriage as they did for instance in the 1950's when interracial marriage was against the law, then this is exactly what will be done.

In order for any social change to be made the attitude and a collective group will back it up.

If the majority does not back it then the court will hear the case to decide if a minority right is being violated in accordance with how the law defines it.

If marriage is only a religious formality then why hasn't religious people protested courthouse marriages done for non religious heterosexuals?

I don't know who teaches people these things.

This country is NOT set up to protect minority rights. That is such a silly notion that is should be self evident. No minority runs to the courts and says we need more rights because we are minorities. People go to the courts to be treated equally under the law. They receive this equality by the Constitution, but they do not receive an equality that harms the rights of others.

I will not entertain the phony argument of civil rights for blacks when discussing a merit of contract law between two individuals. Marriage has no standing with regard to civil rights and is wholly in the domain of contractual law. To make a case for marriage between gays or hetero as compared to the struggle of blacks is offensive.

In order for social change to occur, the majority of the society has to agree. If they do not, then the minority either has to work harder to change the values of those who disagree, or do what the democrats do now and indoctrinate the young and wait for them to come of age to effect that change. The problem here is that people no longer wish to work for the things they value and instead, just want to use the courts as a cudgel to beat those who disagree with their "I want change and I want it now" mentality.

Your last question has a pretty obvious answer. They are not threatened by people who get married in the courthouse.

Can the same be said for those who want to usurp marriage?

Our legal system adopts the Kantian philosophy, it's that whole innocent until proven guilty.

It protects the human being from lynch mob mentality, in other words it doesn't matter if the whole town wants to persecute you, every citizen has the right to be heard and the courts will determine guilt or innocence.

The court will determine whether a right has been violated.

In that way the minority is protected from any majority that otherwise might violate someones rights.

yes, but that is not protection of minority rights. that is protection of individual rights. A legitimate function of government. It matters not if you are a minority or a majority, your rights will be protected.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't follow your argument at all. You are complaining over the government having to change the design of a few forms to administrate the same thing....in an age where we waste untold billions making sure every document in our government is written in every conceivable language on the planet?

Don't follow? It's called efficiency. There's no reason for us to have two 'marriage' institutions that are exactly the same in every single way except for the name on the top of the form; let's just streamline that into one.

It's not going to be a heavy hitter when it comes to the budget, but if you have waste it makes sense to get rid of it no matter how small (just like in business).

.

If efficiency is your concern, would it not be more efficient to not have gay marriage, civil unions and the entire debate? After all, it is a return to the status quo and therefore, costs us nothing.

I have seen many, many people compromise their position on gay marriage and accept that government has no role in deciding who loves who and what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes.

I have not seen any compromise or giving of ground by the gay movement at all to these reasonable concessions.

Why should anyone move any further toward the issue?

After all, these are real people, who have real and legitimate moral objections, making generous concessions in the hopes of finding a resolution to the problem.

What do they get for their trouble? Name calling, threats on their lives and outright hate mongering.

Is it any wonder that this country is so deeply divided?

The majority doesn't have to agree with gay marriage for it to be granted as a right.

The government has already decided to be involved in marriage and so religion does not get to decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't allowed in the Country.

Religious Institutes may be allowed to refuse to marry a couple on a religious ground, but they can't deprive a couple from a courthouse nuptial.

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't follow your argument at all. You are complaining over the government having to change the design of a few forms to administrate the same thing....in an age where we waste untold billions making sure every document in our government is written in every conceivable language on the planet?

Don't follow? It's called efficiency. There's no reason for us to have two 'marriage' institutions that are exactly the same in every single way except for the name on the top of the form; let's just streamline that into one.

It's not going to be a heavy hitter when it comes to the budget, but if you have waste it makes sense to get rid of it no matter how small (just like in business).

.

If efficiency is your concern, would it not be more efficient to not have gay marriage, civil unions and the entire debate? After all, it is a return to the status quo and therefore, costs us nothing.

I have seen many, many people compromise their position on gay marriage and accept that government has no role in deciding who loves who and what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes.

I have not seen any compromise or giving of ground by the gay movement at all to these reasonable concessions.

Why should anyone move any further toward the issue?

After all, these are real people, who have real and legitimate moral objections, making generous concessions in the hopes of finding a resolution to the problem.

What do they get for their trouble? Name calling, threats on their lives and outright hate mongering.

Is it any wonder that this country is so deeply divided?

See, what I don't get is making it seem like only the gays are at fault here. Again, they have been marginalized, humiliated, cast out, and spit on for years. If we're gonna get into the hate mongering that's at the very, very least a two way street, so it's not much use in discussing because we could do this forever.

Second, I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business all together (with regards to the word) and only dealing in civil unions. That's OK, so I don't have much to say on the subject.

But honestly, I can't really see that happening (can you?), so I think the marriage debate from the standpoint of what and what the gov't won't recognize is where we find ourselves. That's just how things are working out at this point.

And finally, what's the big deal if the gov't says two gays are married and also says two straights are married; do they need to interact in some way? Is the straight couple required to hand their children over to the gay couple a few times a month for some gay education program? The point I'm making is why do you care so much if gay people can get married? It's not going to impact your life!

.

 

[flacaltenn]

Instead of Civil Unions, I suggest simply changing a couple letters and calling it Pairraige. Limits it to 2 individuals (as in Pair).

There are real and unintentended consequences in redefining Marraige. Such as the intentionally preferentional treatment of wives in separation and divorce law. When sex is NOT a defining part of a marraige, how many women are gonna regret the days when preference and protection offered to them in dissolutions dissappears from the courts?

Everyone ready for Un-Mixed Pairs Skating in the Olympics?

 

[KevinWestern]

Instead of Civil Unions, I suggest simply changing a couple letters and calling it Pairraige. Limits it to 2 individuals (as in Pair).

There are real and unintentended consequences in redefining Marraige. Such as the intentionally preferentional treatment of wives in separation and divorce law. When sex is NOT a defining part of a marraige, how many women are gonna regret the days when preference and protection offered to them in dissolutions dissappears from the courts?

Everyone ready for Un-Mixed Pairs Skating in the Olympics?

Why should women get preferential treatment in a divorce anyway?


.

 

[Darkwind]

Don't follow? It's called efficiency. There's no reason for us to have two 'marriage' institutions that are exactly the same in every single way except for the name on the top of the form; let's just streamline that into one.

It's not going to be a heavy hitter when it comes to the budget, but if you have waste it makes sense to get rid of it no matter how small (just like in business).

.

If efficiency is your concern, would it not be more efficient to not have gay marriage, civil unions and the entire debate? After all, it is a return to the status quo and therefore, costs us nothing.

I have seen many, many people compromise their position on gay marriage and accept that government has no role in deciding who loves who and what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes.

I have not seen any compromise or giving of ground by the gay movement at all to these reasonable concessions.

Why should anyone move any further toward the issue?

After all, these are real people, who have real and legitimate moral objections, making generous concessions in the hopes of finding a resolution to the problem.

What do they get for their trouble? Name calling, threats on their lives and outright hate mongering.

Is it any wonder that this country is so deeply divided?

See, what I don't get is making it seem like only the gays are at fault here. Again, they have been marginalized, humiliated, cast out, and spit on for years. If we're gonna get into the hate mongering that's at the very, very least a two way street, so it's not much use in discussing because we could do this forever.

Second, I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business all together (with regards to the word) and only dealing in civil unions. That's OK, so I don't have much to say on the subject.

But honestly, I can't really see that happening (can you?), so I think the marriage debate from the standpoint of what and what the gov't won't recognize is where we find ourselves. That's just how things are working out at this point.

And finally, what's the big deal if the gov't says two gays are married and also says two straights are married; do they need to interact in some way? Is the straight couple required to hand their children over to the gay couple a few times a month for some gay education program? The point I'm making is why do you care so much if gay people can get married? It's not going to impact your life!

.

People have held values and morals beliefs for thousands of years. I literally mean thousands of years. They have been marginalized and cast out, but that is what happens when people have strong opinions. There are people here on the left who would gladly cast out, spit upon and marginalize anyone who disagrees with them. It is hardly a conservative trait.

You also seem to just ignore the fact that the compromise has been all one way. Compromise by people who hold deep seated moral beliefs. They have their right to these beliefs, and they have every right to defend and promote them. Every bit as much right as the gays do. The fact that they have been willing to compromise whereas those who advocate for gay marriage have not should point out that the intolerance in this issue has shifted to the proponents of gay marriage.

As for changing government. 25 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the federal government would be violating the Constitution and interfering with the health choices of Americans. Yet, here we are. It would have been unthinkable that gays would have been given civil unions, let alone a standing in the courts for gay marriage. Yet here we are.

Getting government out of anything seems to be unthinkable to progressives and government worshipers, but that does not mean we should stop trying. Perhaps getting children out of the government indoctrination centers will go a long way toward that.

Finally, simply because you do not see the 'big deal' does not mean that there isn't one. Many thousands of lines of argument have been made for this 'big deal'. Have you just summarily rejected and not bothered to read them because you have made up your mind that it is no big deal?

And speaking of which, because I have to run and cannot spend anymore time today on this forum, I have a question.

Why do you support gay marriage? Deep down, why do you think it is okay?

 

[flacaltenn]

Instead of Civil Unions, I suggest simply changing a couple letters and calling it Pairraige. Limits it to 2 individuals (as in Pair).

There are real and unintentended consequences in redefining Marraige. Such as the intentionally preferentional treatment of wives in separation and divorce law. When sex is NOT a defining part of a marraige, how many women are gonna regret the days when preference and protection offered to them in dissolutions dissappears from the courts?

Everyone ready for Un-Mixed Pairs Skating in the Olympics?

Why should women get preferential treatment in a divorce anyway?


.

Because in our society, a guy who fathers children then neglects his duties is "a dead-beat dad" and a criminal. But a woman who has seven kids out of wedlock with no means to support them is "a victim".

So even tho dissolutions ARE more equal and fair today than they were --- woman recieve the choice of working or recieving alimony and child support. Men usually do not.

Gonna lead to some really interesting non-uniformity in gay marraige situations when things go badly..

 

[KevinWestern]

If efficiency is your concern, would it not be more efficient to not have gay marriage, civil unions and the entire debate? After all, it is a return to the status quo and therefore, costs us nothing.

I have seen many, many people compromise their position on gay marriage and accept that government has no role in deciding who loves who and what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes.

I have not seen any compromise or giving of ground by the gay movement at all to these reasonable concessions.

Why should anyone move any further toward the issue?

After all, these are real people, who have real and legitimate moral objections, making generous concessions in the hopes of finding a resolution to the problem.

What do they get for their trouble? Name calling, threats on their lives and outright hate mongering.

Is it any wonder that this country is so deeply divided?

See, what I don't get is making it seem like only the gays are at fault here. Again, they have been marginalized, humiliated, cast out, and spit on for years. If we're gonna get into the hate mongering that's at the very, very least a two way street, so it's not much use in discussing because we could do this forever.

Second, I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business all together (with regards to the word) and only dealing in civil unions. That's OK, so I don't have much to say on the subject.

But honestly, I can't really see that happening (can you?), so I think the marriage debate from the standpoint of what and what the gov't won't recognize is where we find ourselves. That's just how things are working out at this point.

And finally, what's the big deal if the gov't says two gays are married and also says two straights are married; do they need to interact in some way? Is the straight couple required to hand their children over to the gay couple a few times a month for some gay education program? The point I'm making is why do you care so much if gay people can get married? It's not going to impact your life!

.

People have held values and morals beliefs for thousands of years. I literally mean thousands of years. They have been marginalized and cast out, but that is what happens when people have strong opinions. There are people here on the left who would gladly cast out, spit upon and marginalize anyone who disagrees with them. It is hardly a conservative trait.

You also seem to just ignore the fact that the compromise has been all one way. Compromise by people who hold deep seated moral beliefs. They have their right to these beliefs, and they have every right to defend and promote them. Every bit as much right as the gays do. The fact that they have been willing to compromise whereas those who advocate for gay marriage have not should point out that the intolerance in this issue has shifted to the proponents of gay marriage.

As for changing government. 25 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the federal government would be violating the Constitution and interfering with the health choices of Americans. Yet, here we are. It would have been unthinkable that gays would have been given civil unions, let alone a standing in the courts for gay marriage. Yet here we are.

Getting government out of anything seems to be unthinkable to progressives and government worshipers, but that does not mean we should stop trying. Perhaps getting children out of the government indoctrination centers will go a long way toward that.

Finally, simply because you do not see the 'big deal' does not mean that there isn't one. Many thousands of lines of argument have been made for this 'big deal'. Have you just summarily rejected and not bothered to read them because you have made up your mind that it is no big deal?

And speaking of which, because I have to run and cannot spend anymore time today on this forum, I have a question.

Why do you support gay marriage? Deep down, why do you think it is okay?

Thanks for the nice and thoughtful response (not being sarcastic).

I support gay marriage for a few reasons. First is that (personally) I believe that life is very, very short, and if two people of the same sex love each other and want to form a life around one another, who am I to say that they can't fall under that same umbrella I do with my wife? I don't know the secrets to the universe, or if a god exists, or (if he does exist) what his plans are - no one does - so with that as a given if something is going to have no effect on my life, but will make someone else's life much better, I say fine, "go ahead". What's to gain from bickering over it?

If gay people were trying to reduce my rights, or change the conditions of my own marriage, then we'd have an issue. But they are not..

Secondly, the gay couples I know personally act and live exactly the same as the straight couples I know; they hang out, they go on vacations, they take care of one another when one is sick, they pay bills together, they raise kids, ect. So given that the structure of their relationship is exactly the same as my wife and I, who am I to say that they shouldn't call it a marriage?

My question is, what sort of bad things will happen if marriage is redefined to be both same and opposite sex couples? I mean, the gay/straight ratio will still remain the same (that's not going anywhere), and gay people are still going to form couples, adopt children, live amongst you, so again, what does barring them from the word marriage and a few tax breaks accomplish?

Why can't you just enjoy straight marriage alongside gay marriage?

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Instead of Civil Unions, I suggest simply changing a couple letters and calling it Pairraige. Limits it to 2 individuals (as in Pair).

There are real and unintentended consequences in redefining Marraige. Such as the intentionally preferentional treatment of wives in separation and divorce law. When sex is NOT a defining part of a marraige, how many women are gonna regret the days when preference and protection offered to them in dissolutions dissappears from the courts?

Everyone ready for Un-Mixed Pairs Skating in the Olympics?

Why should women get preferential treatment in a divorce anyway?


.

Because in our society, a guy who fathers children then neglects his duties is "a dead-beat dad" and a criminal. But a woman who has seven kids out of wedlock with no means to support them is "a victim".

So even tho dissolutions ARE more equal and fair today than they were --- woman recieve the choice of working or recieving alimony and child support. Men usually do not.

Gonna lead to some really interesting non-uniformity in gay marraige situations when things go badly..

Well, sounds like something we should be making more equal anyways, right? Perhaps gay marriage will help us accomplish this (and level the playing field a bit for us guys).

.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Why can't you drop your ridiculous prejudices? Especially when it has absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0.00% impact on you and your life.

Why?

I'm not being prejudice, you didn't even read my fucking posts, I said amend civil unions to give them full legal rights, but to leave marriage alone.

I read your post. Which part of allowing gays being able to be "married" affects anything with you or your life?

 

[Michelle420]

Instead of Civil Unions, I suggest simply changing a couple letters and calling it Pairraige. Limits it to 2 individuals (as in Pair).

There are real and unintentended consequences in redefining Marraige. Such as the intentionally preferentional treatment of wives in separation and divorce law. When sex is NOT a defining part of a marraige, how many women are gonna regret the days when preference and protection offered to them in dissolutions dissappears from the courts?

Everyone ready for Un-Mixed Pairs Skating in the Olympics?

Why should women get preferential treatment in a divorce anyway?


.

Because in our society, a guy who fathers children then neglects his duties is "a dead-beat dad" and a criminal. But a woman who has seven kids out of wedlock with no means to support them is "a victim".

So even tho dissolutions ARE more equal and fair today than they were --- woman recieve the choice of working or recieving alimony and child support. Men usually do not.

Gonna lead to some really interesting non-uniformity in gay marraige situations when things go badly..

In cases of divorce where children are involved imo this modern society has been unfair and discriminatory in mens rights in regards to child support and child custody, but with men activist grpups things are starting to get better.

That is not to say that women did not need protection rights in certain eras, such as when they were not allowed to make their own living, but those days are over.

 

[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.

Aren’t couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)? They aren’t equal, so unless you’re out there in Washington trying to amend “some aspects” you should probably just quit worrying about the whole thing and get on with your own business.

You don’t have to like gay marriage, you don’t have to support it, you don’t have to teach your kids that it’s an OK option – that’s your prerogative. But when it comes to the lives of other people, why do you have to stick your nose in their business?

,

Try reading the entire sentence next time.

 

[Meister]

Why can't you drop your ridiculous prejudices? Especially when it has absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0.00% impact on you and your life.

Why?

I'm not being prejudice, you didn't even read my fucking posts, I said amend civil unions to give them full legal rights, but to leave marriage alone.

I read your post. Which part of allowing gays being able to be "married" affects anything with you or your life?

To me, it's Biblical.....and I'm not a Bible thumper. So you now know how it "affects" me.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Aren’t couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)? They aren’t equal, so unless you’re out there in Washington trying to amend “some aspects” you should probably just quit worrying about the whole thing and get on with your own business.

You don’t have to like gay marriage, you don’t have to support it, you don’t have to teach your kids that it’s an OK option – that’s your prerogative. But when it comes to the lives of other people, why do you have to stick your nose in their business?

,

Try reading the entire sentence next time.

Yo pal, I think I absorbed his post just fine.

I was simply pointing out that these "amendments" to civil unions don't just happen over night, and right now gays are dealing with some very serious issues like having to pay tens of thousands in estate taxes when a partner dies.

Let's just simplify things and bring them under the umbrella of marriage instead of pointing to these theoretical changes that may or may not happen.

.

 

[Meister]

Aren’t couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)? They aren’t equal, so unless you’re out there in Washington trying to amend “some aspects” you should probably just quit worrying about the whole thing and get on with your own business.

You don’t have to like gay marriage, you don’t have to support it, you don’t have to teach your kids that it’s an OK option – that’s your prerogative. But when it comes to the lives of other people, why do you have to stick your nose in their business?

,

Try reading the entire sentence next time.

Yo pal, I think I absorbed his post just fine.

I was simply pointing out that these "amendments" to civil unions don't just happen over night, and right now gays are dealing with some very serious issues like having to pay tens of thousands in estate taxes when a partner dies.

Let's just simplify things and bring them under the umbrella of marriage instead of pointing to these theoretical changes that may or may not happen.

.

I'm for redefining Civil Unions, I'm not for redefining Marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

one solution is this;

"In some parts of the United States, a covenant marriage is a legally distinct kind of marriage, in which the marrying couple agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for divorce. The covenant marriage laws emphasize the belief that marriage is more than just a mere contract between two individuals, contending that without marriage, there would be no foundation of family in society and, in turn, no civilization or progress to follow.

The movement sets out to promote and strengthen marriages, reduce the rate of divorce, lessen the number of children born out of wedlock, discourage cohabitation, and frame marriage as an honorable and desirable institution.[1] As a law, covenant marriage is technically written neutrally with respect to religion, however it quickly became marked as a religious form of marriage, due to its historical background.[2]"



more here;
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have two types of marriage in Arizona, the plain old "contract" kind and the "covenant" marriage. It seems to me this would satisfy everyone.

Assuming Civil Marriage becomes gender neutral in Arizona, and all marriage laws are changed to reflect that, what aspect of Covenant Marriage under Arizona law would prevent a same-sex couple from receiving the premarital counseling and make the other contractual requirements to qualify their Civil Marriage as a Covenant Marriage?


(And I'm not talking a wiki article, I'm talking what statute under the Arizona Code.)


>>>>