Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Mac1958]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

For EVERYONE who gets a civil marriage license? OK, but now you have to change HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of laws and statutes to change the legal word "marriage" to "civil union".

Meh. Grandfather 'em in, let's keep this simple. I really don't care if Bob wants to be included in his man's Steve's health policy or estate plan. Let's just let it happen.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

A rose by any other name.......

 

[bendog]

I've asked this over the years as well.

If 'marriage benefits' (financial, health, property, etc) are what the gay community wants then why are they fighting tooth and nail to change the term/meaning of marriage? If two same-sex people become civilly unionized they are going to say they are married. Over time, the term marriage will shift to mean two people (man/woman or same-sex). It will evolve, if you will. Instead, they are demanding that everyone else change for the want of a very, very small percentage of the population.

I greatly resent the gay community shoving their blatant disregard for others down my throat.

Ewww, did that ^ conjure up some kind of visual? Sorry 'bout that.

Your post well states the one reason I can agree with to oppose gay marriage. I don't agree with your views, but of course you're entitled to them. Gay marriage does "push" something on you.

 

[Avorysuds]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because Obama and Dems would rather keep religion in Government, keep the powers to tell people who can't get married and who can't and simply put don't want to lose the welfare through tax deductions that they use to buy votes from people.

It's not in the constitution for the Federal Government to have that power, yet like Obamacare/SS and so many other things, they do it! Badly!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

Unfortunately no. If the gays get civil unions they will demand everyone else lose the term marriage.

This is why I don't believe the fight overall is about rights. It's about forcing others to accept your lifestyle by default

 

[bodecea]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

"Civil Unions" exist already.
EVERYONE accepts "civil unions"... but not everyone accepts two men or two women being considered married.

I like everyone have no problem with as a woman caller said she and her female partner for 20 years saw a lawyer and distributed assets, powers of attorney for health etc. even their home.. all under "Civil Union" laws that exist!

So what is the reason for the gay community wanting to change the word to Marriage?

Because that's what it is called.

 

[whitehall]

Why not marry half a dozen people to each other or a dozen? What's wrong with polygamy? NAMBLA says it's fine for a grown man to have sexual relations with a boy and NAMBLA has a voice in the democrat party as well as the issue. Maybe we should leave the issue alone and let the will of the people stand.

 

[Mac1958]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

Unfortunately no. If the gays get civil unions they will demand everyone else lose the term marriage.

This is why I don't believe the fight overall is about rights. It's about forcing others to accept your lifestyle by default

Well, nothing would surprise me. There has to be some give and take, and the pro-gay marriage folks would need to give on this.

.

 

[bodecea]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

I believe the point is...why didn't the religious get all up in arms about the non-religious using the term marriage? NOW it's important?

 

[bendog]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

Unfortunately no. If the gays get civil unions they will demand everyone else lose the term marriage.

This is why I don't believe the fight overall is about rights. It's about forcing others to accept your lifestyle by default

I don't see that as a possible reality. The objection in my religious affiliation was what a priest decided to marry a same sex couple with one of them wearing a tux or white dress not traditionally worn by that sex person. And the answer was obvious that it would be ludicrous for a priest to do that, and if he/she did there would be disciplinary action brought.

However, for the time being we've just gone for a liturgy that is basically a same sex blessing that is to be no more, or less, valid or worthy than traditional marriage. Concerns such as zoom bings deserve accomodation as do the rights of gays and lesbians. (I admit, I'm still a bit confused on the bi thing. I sorta think that if you're doing commitment, you need to make up your mind. Realizing not all people are 100% faithful to vows. But still (-

 

[bodecea]

Why not marry half a dozen people to each other or a dozen? What's wrong with polygamy? NAMBLA says it's fine for a grown man to have sexual relations with a boy and NAMBLA has a voice in the democrat party as well as the issue. Maybe we should leave the issue alone and let the will of the people stand.

There you have it.

Now...what is it about gay marriage that would trigger such things that would NOT be triggered by straight marriage?

Explain please.

 

[bendog]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

I believe the point is...why didn't the religious get all up in arms about the non-religious using the term marriage? NOW it's important?

Well the pt I tried to make was that religious gay/lesbians shouldn't be discriminated against.

 

[Katzndogz]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because separate but equal is just as unconstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

Equal rights is a victory. I look forward to that victory. You should too. When one law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is treated equally, we all win.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

In California anyone can enter into a civil union. There is no requirement that the parties be homosexuals. Civil Unions that are not legally recognized as a marriage is used primarily by the elderly who want the companionship, but do not want to lose benefits from a deceased spouse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

In California anyone can enter into a civil union. There is no requirement that the parties be homosexuals. Civil Unions that are not legally recognized as a marriage is used primarily by the elderly who want the companionship, but do not want to lose benefits from a deceased spouse.

That is false, not everyone in California can enter into a Civil Union.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

It pretty much takes away any no fault or irreconcilable differences, unless the female has the means to live without financial support for her and the kids, or is willing to abandon the kids to a spouse.

Covenant Marriage legal definition of Covenant Marriage. Covenant Marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What this creature has to do with the topic of the thread ..... don't ask me.

 

[asaratis]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

"Civil Unions" exist already.
EVERYONE accepts "civil unions"... but not everyone accepts two men or two women being considered married.

I like everyone have no problem with as a woman caller said she and her female partner for 20 years saw a lawyer and distributed assets, powers of attorney for health etc. even their home.. all under "Civil Union" laws that exist!

So what is the reason for the gay community wanting to change the word to Marriage?

The gay community wants to stick out its chest and say, "We won!" That is the hang up. On the pretense of obtaining equal rights (that they already may have) they want "marriage" redefined so that they are not singled out by the definition of it.

...a rather STUPID fucking reason, if you ask me. There is no need to redefine the word.