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

Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
 
every state that has an issue with teh ghey using their precious M word could simply petition to change ALL state 'marriage' licenses to 'civil union' licenses subject to all legal conveyances of current civil marriage laws...


why not? :dunno:
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.


why? it would be just legal terminology where nothing would materially change for the couple no matter what their state labels it.

you are referring to current civil marriage which isn't the same.

what i'm suggesting would keep all things equal.
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.


why? it would be just legal terminology where nothing would materially change for the couple no matter what their state labels it.

you are referring to current civil marriage which isn't the same.

what i'm suggesting would keep all things equal.

And that is why it won't work. The issue is not over the word "marriage", it is over the word "equal". One side wants to be equal to the other, and the other side doesn't want them to. Changing the word "marriage" does not address the actual issue.
 
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
Why can't they just settle for civil unions? Would you?

If all marriage is worth is the confluence of legal benefits and protections, why shouldn't everyone be asked to settle for a legal arrangement that changes from state to state?

I've seen the other side of this issue, a very human element revealed by people I care about. Just like us, they want something more lasting, more personal, and in no way unequal to the social recognition we enjoy. I see no good reason to deny it to them.
 
Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.
 
Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

There is also no law which requires anyone to go to a particular church or stay there. If people don't like a change there are many other options for them.
 
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?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.
not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?
Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

Public accommodation laws. They've been on the books at the federal level since the 60s (and withstood Supreme Court challenges too)
 
Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

There is also no law which requires anyone to go to a particular church or stay there. If people don't like a change there are many other options for them.
And there's no law that requires one to let activist assholes run them out of a church.
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.

why? it would be just legal terminology where nothing would materially change for the couple no matter what their state labels it.

you are referring to current civil marriage which isn't the same.

what i'm suggesting would keep all things equal.

And that is why it won't work. The issue is not over the word "marriage", it is over the word "equal". One side wants to be equal to the other, and the other side doesn't want them to. Changing the word "marriage" does not address the actual issue.


i guess you don't get what i'm saying because it does address the actual issue, unless the issue is letting religious zealots determine that the 14th amendment is meaningless...?


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



my suggestion is, if any state majority has an issue with teh ghey using their precious M word, citizens could simply petition to change ALL state 'marriage' licenses to 'civil union' licenses subject to all legal conveyances of current civil marriage laws...
 
Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

There is also no law which requires anyone to go to a particular church or stay there. If people don't like a change there are many other options for them.
And there's no law that requires one to let activist assholes run them out of a church.

Or prevents it. Your issue is solely with the church, not the activists. The church doesn't have to change.
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.

why? it would be just legal terminology where nothing would materially change for the couple no matter what their state labels it.

you are referring to current civil marriage which isn't the same.

what i'm suggesting would keep all things equal.

And that is why it won't work. The issue is not over the word "marriage", it is over the word "equal". One side wants to be equal to the other, and the other side doesn't want them to. Changing the word "marriage" does not address the actual issue.


i guess you don't get what i'm saying because it does address the actual issue, unless the issue is letting religious zealots determine that the 14th amendment is meaningless...?


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



my suggestion is, if any state majority has an issue with teh ghey using their precious M word, citizens could simply petition to change ALL state 'marriage' licenses to 'civil union' licenses subject to all legal conveyances of current civil marriage laws...

I do get what you are saying, I am saying that you are wrong. The word "marriage" is not the issue, it is only the excuse.
 
...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^
 
Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.
Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.
Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

There is also no law which requires anyone to go to a particular church or stay there. If people don't like a change there are many other options for them.
And there's no law that requires one to let activist assholes run them out of a church.

No law that requires that they admit activist assholes, or Jews or Blacks or Catholics or Hispanics or Mormons.

Churches can discriminate in any way that they want.
 
Then all the states would have to do the same thing. Here in mn we don't have civil unions so if you get one in another state and move here you are not married under our laws.

why? it would be just legal terminology where nothing would materially change for the couple no matter what their state labels it.

you are referring to current civil marriage which isn't the same.

what i'm suggesting would keep all things equal.

And that is why it won't work. The issue is not over the word "marriage", it is over the word "equal". One side wants to be equal to the other, and the other side doesn't want them to. Changing the word "marriage" does not address the actual issue.


i guess you don't get what i'm saying because it does address the actual issue, unless the issue is letting religious zealots determine that the 14th amendment is meaningless...?


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



my suggestion is, if any state majority has an issue with teh ghey using their precious M word, citizens could simply petition to change ALL state 'marriage' licenses to 'civil union' licenses subject to all legal conveyances of current civil marriage laws...

Yep- states could eliminate civil marriage entirely and create a new contractual arrangement called civil marriage.

Or.....just keep marriage.
 
iow as far as all legal conveyances everything is equal under state and federal law but some states use one term and some states use another... for example, if you get gay married in vermont and then move to mississippi two years later, your marriage is still legally unchanged other than your new state labels it differently on the state level.
 

Forum List

Back
Top