Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Bombur]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.

This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?

The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?


"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857

No, because they objective has always been to change the law to allow the state to dictate religion.

In the case of gay marriage the state is dictating to religion when they weren't allowing it. Now they are not.

HTH

 

[Syriusly]

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

Actually it is amazing for you to claim that you say the same things about the other side- when in this thread- your examples have been specifically about the 'left' and 'homosexuals'- and you have not ever used that same language towards 'the other side"

Look at these quotes from you- and then show me where you have said the same things about the 'other side"


I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.


Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are. Great, sounds good to me. But if Christian conservatives were to follow my advice (which I highly doubt) and say that a man-woman marriage under their God was an "ABC", it would not surprise me to see your side of this have a problem of some kind with it.


Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this. And your follow-up question is exactly my point.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

why do you pretend that a civil union could not have the same legal implications.

It could. And then what, you make it illegal for two people to call themselves married? This is where the your argument fell apart last time. People can call their arrangement anything they please. You could call your relationship with your dog marriage, if you wanted to do so.

What does it matter if they are not considered married but in a civil union instead. The fight was about the rights, not the name. When the civil union was brought up that would bring all of the same benefits, it suddenly was not about the benefits but instead about the name.
This just tells me something.
Im all for gay marriage because of the decent gay people that I have the honor of being friends with, Im not for it being called the same because of the ldiot fringe crowd of gays running around demanding everything. Marriage, not civil union, bake that cake or get sued, Yes we can use whatever bathroom we feel like using, see, it wont end , just like civil rights, you can give what the ask, then because its such a money making scheme, they have to come up with something else to fight for. Cant wait to see who the Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue of the gay world ends up being.
I wonder if we are going to see gangs of gay kids running up at stop lights slapping cars and spray painting the windows in rainbow color.

 

[Ravi]

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

You have never said the same things about the other side of the SSM debate. At least not on this board.

 

[Ravi]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

why do you pretend that a civil union could not have the same legal implications.

It could. And then what, you make it illegal for two people to call themselves married? This is where the your argument fell apart last time. People can call their arrangement anything they please. You could call your relationship with your dog marriage, if you wanted to do so.

What does it matter if they are not considered married but in a civil union instead. The fight was about the rights, not the name. When the civil union was brought up that would bring all of the same benefits, it suddenly was not about the benefits but instead about the name.

This never happened. Please show me where the originally offered civil union afforded the same rights as civil marriage.

Thanks.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

 

[Mac1958]

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

Actually it is amazing for you to claim that you say the same things about the other side- when in this thread- your examples have been specifically about the 'left' and 'homosexuals'- and you have not ever used that same language towards 'the other side"

Look at these quotes from you- and then show me where you have said the same things about the 'other side"


I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.


Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are. Great, sounds good to me. But if Christian conservatives were to follow my advice (which I highly doubt) and say that a man-woman marriage under their God was an "ABC", it would not surprise me to see your side of this have a problem of some kind with it.


Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this. And your follow-up question is exactly my point.

Well, I'm certainly flattered by your intense attention to my posts.

I've said more than once, and in more than a few ways, that I don't like the way the Left has handled this issue. The Christian Conservatives are what they are, and they're losing pretty badly. What I don't like, as I've said a million times, is the Left's proclivity for PC, intimidation, punishment and control. I don't think it's necessary.

Maybe it some kind of "payback". Fine. I'm not that way.

.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

here

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

 

[Ravi]

here

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

Everything is a right unless there is a compelling reason to withhold a right.

 

[Ravi]

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

Actually it is amazing for you to claim that you say the same things about the other side- when in this thread- your examples have been specifically about the 'left' and 'homosexuals'- and you have not ever used that same language towards 'the other side"

Look at these quotes from you- and then show me where you have said the same things about the 'other side"


I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.


Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are. Great, sounds good to me. But if Christian conservatives were to follow my advice (which I highly doubt) and say that a man-woman marriage under their God was an "ABC", it would not surprise me to see your side of this have a problem of some kind with it.


Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this. And your follow-up question is exactly my point.

Well, I'm certainly flattered by your intense attention to my posts.

I've said more than once, and in more than a few ways, that I don't like the way the Left has handled this issue. The Christian Conservatives are what they are, and they're losing pretty badly. What I don't like, as I've said a million times, is the Left's proclivity for PC, intimidation, punishment and control. I don't think it's necessary.

Maybe it some kind of "payback". Fine. I'm not that way.

.

Your basic argument is that gays and the ebil libruls are being unPC by insisting that gays be allowed to use the term marriage.

Hysterical.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When the civil union was brought up that would bring all of the same benefits, it suddenly was not about the benefits but instead about the name.

No Civil Union law ever provided the same rights, reponsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

And...

There was a big push to ban Civil Unions and Civil Marriages, for example from my State:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Only when the realization hit that social authoritarians were losing the quest to keep same-sex couples from equal legal recognition did "Civil Unions" suddenly become an acceptable alternative. Of course maybe if they had accepted them before, they would have been acceptable. But that door was closed by amendments like the one above.



>>>>

 

[Mac1958]

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

Actually it is amazing for you to claim that you say the same things about the other side- when in this thread- your examples have been specifically about the 'left' and 'homosexuals'- and you have not ever used that same language towards 'the other side"

Look at these quotes from you- and then show me where you have said the same things about the 'other side"


I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.


Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are. Great, sounds good to me. But if Christian conservatives were to follow my advice (which I highly doubt) and say that a man-woman marriage under their God was an "ABC", it would not surprise me to see your side of this have a problem of some kind with it.


Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this. And your follow-up question is exactly my point.

Well, I'm certainly flattered by your intense attention to my posts.

I've said more than once, and in more than a few ways, that I don't like the way the Left has handled this issue. The Christian Conservatives are what they are, and they're losing pretty badly. What I don't like, as I've said a million times, is the Left's proclivity for PC, intimidation, punishment and control. I don't think it's necessary.

Maybe it some kind of "payback". Fine. I'm not that way.

.

Your basic argument is that gays and the ebil libruls are being unPC by insisting that gays be allowed to use the term marriage.

Hysterical.

Is that my argument?

Cool. Whatever ends this conversation.

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There are REAL issues right now that must be addressed that Obama & the democrats want everyone to ignore so why the fuck are we talking about this stupid topic again? WHY?
Stop helping dems deflect from the important issues that are front & center right now.

 

[Ravi]

There are REAL issues right now that must be addressed that Obama & the democrats want everyone to ignore so why the fuck are we talking about this stupid topic again? WHY?
Stop helping dems deflect from the important issues that are front & center right now.

I'd love to see the pols focus on ending the war on drugs.

But the OP is living in the past.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My great uncle was gay, and would have laughed at either option.

Evidence that gays are the same as everyone else, and capable of being just as wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There are REAL issues right now that must be addressed that Obama & the democrats want everyone to ignore so why the fuck are we talking about this stupid topic again? WHY?
Stop helping dems deflect from the important issues that are front & center right now.

I'd love to see the pols focus on ending the war on drugs.

But the OP is living in the past.

Even that is more important than this stupid shit

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

"Liberals" didn't.

They fought for the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law they are eligible to participate in, the state contract law called marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are REAL issues right now that must be addressed that Obama & the democrats want everyone to ignore so why the fuck are we talking about this stupid topic again? WHY?
Stop helping dems deflect from the important issues that are front & center right now.

Defending the civil rights of all Americans will always be among the most important of issues.

 

[koshergrl]

Just because the homonazis claim it's a non issue doesn't make it one.

This continues to be an issue because people will continue to assert that the scotus leveled a bad law on us.

And we are committed to fighting bad laws.

 

[Ravi]

Just because the homonazis claim it's a non issue doesn't make it one.

This continues to be an issue because people will continue to assert that the scotus leveled a bad law on us.

And we are committed to fighting bad laws.

What law do you speak of?