The assault on Family Values continues

I think you should be able to choose between either the shorter version, call it a Union, and the more traditional marriage.
 
Who gets what when it expires?
Who has to take the kids?
Who gets to keep the dog?
 
Damocles said:
I think you should be able to choose between either the shorter version, call it a Union, and the more traditional marriage.
Click to expand...
I think that the license should be the thing entire and any ceremony should be optional.

It's already a two step process, at least here: taking out the marriage license and recording the marriage certificate. Once the marriage certificate is recorded, you're hitched. I suggest that the state should get out of the ceremony business entirely. You could choose to have some sort of ceremony before recording the certificate or not.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I think that the license should be the thing entire and any ceremony should be optional.

It's already a two step process, at least here: taking out the marriage license and recording the marriage certificate. Once the marriage certificate is recorded, you're hitched. I suggest that the state should get out of the ceremony business entirely. You could choose to have some sort of ceremony before recording the certificate or not.
Click to expand...
You don't need a ceremony here, you can just get to witnesses to sign the license and then send it on in...

If my mother-in-law wasn't so set on the wedding we'd have just taken two people in line had them sign for us and turned the thing in.
 
Damocles said:
You don't need a ceremony here, you can just get to witnesses to sign the license and then send it on in...

If my mother-in-law wasn't so set on the wedding we'd have just taken two people in line had them sign for us and turned the thing in.
Click to expand...
Now, if we can just get gender out of the licensing requirements, we're good to go. :)
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Now, if we can just get gender out of the licensing requirements, we're good to go. :)
Click to expand...

I agree that the state should get out of the marriage business. It should be where any two consenting adults can apply and receive a cival union license from the state and receive the benefits of inheritance/visitation/custody rights as well as any tax benefits the government provides for a couple. If people want to be "married" then they can go to a religious institution for that.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree that the state should get out of the marriage business. It should be where any two consenting adults can apply and receive a cival union license from the state and receive the benefits of inheritance/visitation/custody rights as well as any tax benefits the government provides for a couple. If people want to be "married" then they can go to a religious institution for that.
Click to expand...
So, you're advocating changing all of the wording in all of the existing statutes from "marriage" and "married" to "civil unions" and "civilly united"? Seems like a pointless and expensive exercise in PC excess to me.

Call it what it is: marriage. If the religious don't like it, tough. They'll get over it.
 
Conservative PC Nonsense

There's no need for the clunky, ugly phrase "civil union." The word "marriage" already suffices.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : [SIZE=-1]WEDLOCK[/SIZE] c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
 
Keep up that attitude. The stupidity of people to act as if the term marriage isn't a big deal, but continue to bitch about gay couples not being able to call it a marriage is laughable. THAT "you have to believe what I want you to believe" attitude is why gay couples still are not afforded the basic rights that they should have had long ago. The "I want you to respect my views and lifestyle" but "I have no respect for your views" crap is just that... crap.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Leave it there.

If the government wants to get involved in joining couples than do so via the cival union.... WITHOUT discrimination against same sex couples.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
So, you're advocating changing all of the wording in all of the existing statutes from "marriage" and "married" to "civil unions" and "civilly united"? Seems like a pointless and expensive exercise in PC excess to me.

Call it what it is: marriage. If the religious don't like it, tough. They'll get over it.
Click to expand...

I am advocating getting same sex couples the rights they deserve. This does that. If individuals wish to continue the fight over the term marriage after that... let them bitch about it on both sides until they are blue in the face for all I care. But as long as people like you insist upon the "if you don't like it tough shit" attitude towards those of an opposing view, then you have NO place complaining if they return the favor.
 
Superfreak said:
I am advocating getting same sex couples the rights they deserve. This does that. If individuals wish to continue the fight over the term marriage after that... let them bitch about it on both sides until they are blue in the face for all I care. But as long as people like you insist upon the "if you don't like it tough shit" attitude towards those of an opposing view, then you have NO place complaining if they return the favor.
Click to expand...
Ah, but I'm not denying anyone equal treatment under the law. The "traditional marriage" crowd are. Therein lies the difference.

Call it marriage and have done. No church would be forced to sanctify a same-sex marriage if they chose not to. There are plenty of clergy willing to perform same-sex marriages, so there's no need to force anyone to perform the rite.
 
LadyT said:
Who gets what when it expires?
Who has to take the kids?
Who gets to keep the dog?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying it would enhance personal freedom and choice.

If you still love your spouse after 7 years you renew, big deal. It avoids being trapped in entangling marriages in states with strict divorce laws.
 
Superfreak said:
Keep up that attitude. The stupidity of people to act as if the term marriage isn't a big deal, but continue to bitch about gay couples not being able to call it a marriage is laughable. THAT "you have to believe what I want you to believe" attitude is why gay couples still are not afforded the basic rights that they should have had long ago. The "I want you to respect my views and lifestyle" but "I have no respect for your views" crap is just that... crap.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Leave it there.

If the government wants to get involved in joining couples than do so via the cival union.... WITHOUT discrimination against same sex couples.
Click to expand...
No, marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. Whoever gave you that silly idea? Marriage CAN involve a religious ceremony but it need not. It hasn't required one for hundreds of years. I refer you to the principle of "common law marriage" for example, or civil marriage in most western cultures.

The idea that marriage is primarily a religious institution ignores all of history. It is a fantasy, concocted -- recently -- by fanatics to justify their own hatred and intolerance. Traditionally, marriage is, first and foremost, a legal union, concerned with property rights and inheritance.

If "marriage" and "civil union" are equivalent, then why bother with the expense and hassle of changing the existing laws? If, on the other hand, "marriage" and "civil union" are NOT equivalent, then your proposal would deny equal protection to same sex couples.

Either way, your position is inconsistent.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Ah, but I'm not denying anyone equal treatment under the law. The "traditional marriage" crowd are. Therein lies the difference.

Call it marriage and have done. No church would be forced to sanctify a same-sex marriage if they chose not to. There are plenty of clergy willing to perform same-sex marriages, so there's no need to force anyone to perform the rite.
Click to expand...

But you are forcing people to accept your beliefs that we should change the definition of marriage as was done in the dictionary reference you provided. In doing so, you continue a fight that need not take place. They have NO ground to stand on if you make it cival unions. None. Because then it is not a religious ceremony it is a state ceremony. When you blend the two, then you have a problem. Funny how so many libs preach seperation except on this one religious issue.
 
does not the constitution prohibity laws about religion ? any religion ?
therefore marriage is a contract, not a religious thing in the eyes of the law and government.
 
Superfreak said:
But you are forcing people to accept your beliefs that we should change the definition of marriage as was done in the dictionary reference you provided. In doing so, you continue a fight that need not take place. They have NO ground to stand on if you make it cival unions. None. Because then it is not a religious ceremony it is a state ceremony. When you blend the two, then you have a problem. Funny how so many libs preach seperation except on this one religious issue.
Click to expand...
You're the one insisting on a change in the definition of marriage. You want to make it a religious institution when, traditionally, it has not been.

The only reason you want the silly "civil unions" compromise is so that you can make same-sex couples in some sense second-rate. "Oh, they're not really married, you know, it's just a civil union." Elitist claptrap, for which I have no patience whatsoever.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
No, marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. Whoever gave you that silly idea? Marriage CAN involve a religious ceremony but it need not. It hasn't required one for hundreds of years. I refer you to the principle of "common law marriage" for example, or civil marriage in most western cultures.

The idea that marriage is primarily a religious institution ignores all of history. It is a fantasy, concocted -- recently -- by fanatics to justify their own hatred and intolerance. Traditionally, marriage is, first and foremost, a legal union, concerned with property rights and inheritance.

If "marriage" and "civil union" are equivalent, then why bother with the expense and hassle of changing the existing laws? If, on the other hand, "marriage" and "civil union" are NOT equivalent, then your proposal would deny equal protection to same sex couples.

Either way, your position is inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Just because you and I do not see a difference in marriage and cival union doesn't mean that no one does. If in their minds there is a difference, then why fight it?

You keep referring to some arbitrary costs to change this... I ask you... how much time and money have been spent fighting this issue? Which is cheaper? Continuing to see people fight this issue or solving it once and for all?

Yes, your solution of "we will change it and screw you if you disagree" attitude would indeed be cheaper than changing it to cival union. But that is not going to happen and you know it.
 
Superfreak said:
Just because you and I do not see a difference in marriage and cival union doesn't mean that no one does. If in their minds there is a difference, then why fight it?
Click to expand...
Because, if there is a difference, then we are enshrining unequal treatment under the law in the law.

The word is "marriage." No one is forcing any religious sect to recognize marriages of which they disapprove. Catholics and Orthodox already deny the validity of civil marriages, so nothing would change for them. I don't know whether Baptists recognize civil marriage or not, but I suspect not: they're a very judgmental bunch, by and large.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Because, if there is a difference, then we are enshrining unequal treatment under the law in the law.

The word is "marriage." No one is forcing any religious sect to recognize marriages of which they disapprove. Catholics and Orthodox already deny the validity of civil marriages, so nothing would change for them. I don't know whether Baptists recognize civil marriage or not, but I suspect not: they're a very judgmental bunch, by and large.
Click to expand...
No, you wouldn't be. Those who wanted a marriage could go and get that religious ceremony, those that did not could simply accept their union regardless of which the rights are the same.

There are those who would perform the ceremony for Gays, they'd get exactly the same rights and benefits as those who were not gay and it would get the government out of regulating a religious ceremony to an extent that the marriages that they perform for a couple of gay guys doesn't "count".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top