Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Mac1958]

Shouldn't social issues be behind the real issue, how about working on the economy, and then take on social issues.. I really don't see how gay marrige is going to bring down unemployement.

Bingo.

.

 

[Mustang]

Shouldn't social issues be behind the real issue, how about working on the economy, and then take on social issues.. I really don't see how gay marrige is going to bring down unemployement.

Just wait until Richard Simmons tours your town. Like the Marines, he's looking for a few good men. Have your resumé ready.

 

[freedombecki]

.

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 equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

It's more than bullshit gains through semantics, Grampa Murked U. This is precursor to taking away people's rights to designate inheritances to sons and daughters who gave their parents grandchildren. Gays can now demand equal rights and punitive measures against their "noncooperative" parents' wills to ensure that their estates go to family and can be lifted to go to funding gay-rights parades that make other people want to throw up instead of paying for inheritance taxes on family businesses they want run by their grandchildren.

It's all about money. And nobody can complain when the groom and groom serve their guests butthole cupcakes and penis ice cream.

The United States Government is creating a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

 

[Rozman]

.

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?

.

This proposal reeks of common sense..
That's why it will fail
The lefties will cry that it's discrimination.
We can ask them to compromise but Democrats only believe in compromise
when they want the right to cave in...

I agree that the word marriage is really what the right gets worked up about.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.

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?

.

A civil marriage is a civil union contract. The word is really unimportant except to those who think they own it. But I think same-sex couples say it's about more than the contract. They do not get married only or primarily to benefit from the things you list.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

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?

.

This proposal reeks of common sense..
That's why it will fail
The lefties will cry that it's discrimination.
We can ask them to compromise but Democrats only believe in compromise
when they want the right to cave in...

I agree that the word marriage is really what the right gets worked up about.

You might be surprised about how much support there is to replace Civil Marriage with Civil Unions for all couples.


>>>>

 

[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?

.

This proposal reeks of common sense..
That's why it will fail
The lefties will cry that it's discrimination.
We can ask them to compromise but Democrats only believe in compromise
when they want the right to cave in...

I agree that the word marriage is really what the right gets worked up about.

You’re seriously suggesting that American citizens be compelled to ‘compromise’ on their civil liberties.

Let’s hope all conservatives aren’t as ignorant and as hateful as you.

It would be legally untenable to have two identical statues with identical provisions exist simultaneously but called two different things.

To tell same-sex couples that they must stand in the ‘civil union’ line to get a marriage license is as offensive to the Constitution as telling an African-American he must use the colored only restroom, or to tell a black child he may not go to school with white children.

 

[Seawytch]

Shouldn't social issues be behind the real issue, how about working on the economy, and then take on social issues.. I really don't see how gay marrige is going to bring down unemployement.

The Supreme Court wouldn't be working on the economy.

Actually, gay marriage will create jobs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

After Margaret Marshall's ruling I said "The train has left the station." Sooner or later...

 

[WUN]

.

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?

.

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

If Gays are allowed to marry, they'd (somehow?

) be MORE married than heteros??!!!

No, that's not what I am saying - more than to be in a legally recognized contract, they want universal/societal acceptance that a homosexual union is no different from heterosexual union. They want it to go beyond legality, which in many heterosexuals' minds 'marriage' is more than a legal contract. You're interpreting marriage to be just a legal/binding contract, but to several segments in society it means more than that and not necessarily from a religious perspective.

 

[PratchettFan]

.

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?

.

So long as it applies equally to everyone, I could not care less what it is called.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

If Gays are allowed to marry, they'd (somehow?

) be MORE married than heteros??!!!

No, that's not what I am saying - more than to be in a legally recognized contract, they want universal/societal acceptance that a homosexual union is no different from heterosexual union. They want it to go beyond legality, which in many heterosexuals' minds 'marriage' is more than a legal contract. You're interpreting marriage to be just a legal/binding contract, but to several segments in society it means more than that and not necessarily from a religious perspective.

It is irrelevant what the religious perspective is. The government cannot do anything about a religious perspective, only a legal one. So any law or judicial finding is based solely upon the legal perspective. That is the only thing this is about. Equal rights under the law. In that regard, marriage is just a legally binding contract and nothing else.

Churches and people can see it differently. I can believe that a black woman and a white man cannot be married. The Catholic church can believe that anyone married outside of their church is not married. The law, however, must be uniformly applied to all.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

If Gays are allowed to marry, they'd (somehow?

) be MORE married than heteros??!!!

No, that's not what I am saying - more than to be in a legally recognized contract, they want universal/societal acceptance that a homosexual union is no different from heterosexual union. They want it to go beyond legality, which in many heterosexuals' minds 'marriage' is more than a legal contract. You're interpreting marriage to be just a legal/binding contract, but to several segments in society it means more than that and not necessarily from a religious perspective.

Please dont quote crayon boy.


Thank you

 

[g5000]

An observer of 1832 speaking of the advantages of America over Europe:

The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more. I do not know what could restore the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be for human policy to leave to faith the full exercise of the strength which it still retains.

America has not heeded this lesson. Just like Europe of old, we have let our churches become "intimately united to the powers of the earth" by allowing government to take over marriage.

Think about how much the Religious Right has become "the opinion of a party".

If government had not taken over marriage, we would not even be having this conversation.

 

[Borillar]

.

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?

.

This proposal reeks of common sense..
That's why it will fail
The lefties will cry that it's discrimination.
We can ask them to compromise but Democrats only believe in compromise
when they want the right to cave in...

I agree that the word marriage is really what the right gets worked up about.

You’re seriously suggesting that American citizens be compelled to ‘compromise’ on their civil liberties.

Let’s hope all conservatives aren’t as ignorant and as hateful as you.

It would be legally untenable to have two identical statues with identical provisions exist simultaneously but called two different things.

To tell same-sex couples that they must stand in the ‘civil union’ line to get a marriage license is as offensive to the Constitution as telling an African-American he must use the colored only restroom, or to tell a black child he may not go to school with white children.

Why not simply make all marriages, gay and straight, civil unions as far as the government is concerned? Couples who want religious marriage can go to their Church, after getting their civil union license, and have their ceremony. This way, all civil unions would carry the same government rights and benefits regardless of gender, and folks that want marriage could still be married according to the traditions of their respective religions.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

If Gays are allowed to marry, they'd (somehow?

) be MORE married than heteros??!!!

No, that's not what I am saying - more than to be in a legally recognized contract, they want universal/societal acceptance that a homosexual union is no different from heterosexual union. They want it to go beyond legality, which in many heterosexuals' minds 'marriage' is more than a legal contract. You're interpreting marriage to be just a legal/binding contract, but to several segments in society it means more than that and not necessarily from a religious perspective.

You may be right about some of them or maybe most but who cares what someone thinks?
Do you worry about what folks think about what you call and believe your marriage is?
I bet your faith is stronger than that and can withstand what you may perceive what someone else is thinking.
No one is asking you to do a damn thing you do not want to do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK. Let me clarify.

Gramps and others are saying that they are OK with gay people entering into a contract that provides the exact same components, rights and responsibilities as a marriage....just so long as it is legally known as a civil union and not a marriage?

Is that the case?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK. Let me clarify.

Gramps and others are saying that they are OK with gay people entering into a contract that provides the exact same components, rights and responsibilities as a marriage....just so long as it is legally known as a civil union and not a marriage?

Is that the case?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-and-just-be-done-with-it-20.html#post7027363