Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think any gay person would take issue with renaming "civil marriage" as "civil union" and then letting everyone have equal access to "civil unions." Why do that though when the simplest recourse is to give gay couples equal access to the law as currently titled?
Because it gets mired up in people's religious beliefs when you use the current title. And while you may not agree with what they feel, those are some very strongly held, deeply rooted beliefs and it seems counterproductive to put them on the defensive when the ultimate goal, equal legal rights, can be had with less strife.
The problem with normalizing homosexuality is that it is not normal.
Neither is being left handed. And yet we have managed to stop burning leftys at the stake as witches, and accept them as a non threatening, non-harmful, fully human variation worthy of all the same rights and responsibilities as the rightys, or <gasp> those that write both ways. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation, in both man and animals, and has been around for a very, very long time. Why should we treat it any differently than handedness or hair color? ( Watch out for the gingers! They are of the devil, too!)
Marriage is removed from the legal realm altogether, and becomes strictly a social/religious ceremony. All unions would be civil unions and would be legally identical. In this idea, a given religion could set its own terms for marriage within that religion. In this way, no religious group would be forced to sanction the marriage it didn't agree with. In the same way religious (or social) groups that wanted to sanction particular variations of marriage could define the term the way they wanted to.
I know. Why bother calling it a civil union if gay couples will be getting married anyway by the church? Expand marriage equality, and don't bother with separate-but-equal unconstitutional bull**** that'll get struck down in ten years and rewritten as equal rights anyway, and avoid the blackmark on our history as is.
You can't stop gay couples from getting married in a church, so why try to stop them at the legal level? Do you think by calling it a "civil union," you'll bar churches from offering marriage certificates to gay couples married there?
I have no issue with them getting marriage, I was just stating the fact that what the religious institution issues it does not help them get the rights they want.
I have no issue with them getting marriage, I was just stating the fact that what the religious institution issues it does not help them get the rights they want.
And changing then name of marriage won't stop them from getting married.
I have no issue with them getting marriage, I was just stating the fact that what the religious institution issues it does not help them get the rights they want.
Evidently, neither does calling it a civil union, because the same folks who object to the word "marriage" being used for gay couples also object to them being able to adopt children, to be legally named as parents on birth certificates, or to have the legal status of a spouse. We don't have equal civil unions, and in a great many states they don't even want to allow civil unions. This is not really about the word.
Because it gets mired up in people's religious beliefs when you use the current title. And while you may not agree with what they feel, those are some very strongly held, deeply rooted beliefs and it seems counterproductive to put them on the defensive when the ultimate goal, equal legal rights, can be had with less strife.
Well too bad. I'm not willing to settle for separate but equal. Our Constitution requires equal treatment under our civil laws - it makes no separate provisions for sensitivities based on terminology (to be clear, I don't give a rat's ass what it's called).
The 14th Amendment says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It doesn't say:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, except when the law uses an emotionally charged word precious to a subset of Americans. In that case, the law can be specially reserved for that subset at the exclusion of other groups of Americans."
Ok, I have been having this conversation with friends both gay and straight and we are divided about 50/50 so here goes...
Marriage has a definition of a union between a man and a woman. The man is then given the title of husband and the woman the title of wife. Don't think there is any disagreement on those definitions.
Now, for years gays have lobbied for the same rights as "married" couples. They have argued for the right to be "married" with all of the legal and social rights that come with that union in their own minds.
The other side argues that they can not be married because they are of the same sex and therefore biblicially and "socially" unable to meet the definition of "married." And, that it is impossible for a woman to assume the role of "husband" and a man to assume the role of a "wife" because they are by gender not the same.
So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
I'm fairly certain, had any group petitioned to have a 'civil union' or 'partnership' or other generic term giving a pair of consenting adults the privilege of mutual guardianship then legislatures around the country would have had a non-threatening topic to work with.
I've never thought that gays or lesbians ever really have sex. There's no opportunity in 'whatever' act they perform to achieve a goal of reproduction. They're just simply improvising an illusion in their own minds.
And as far as 'gay' or 'lesbian' goes, I would think that an actual homosexual would seek, with the intent of success, a transgender modification. Otherwise they're just boys and girls playing around, maybe expressing affection for their current partner.
Because it gets mired up in people's religious beliefs when you use the current title. And while you may not agree with what they feel, those are some very strongly held, deeply rooted beliefs and it seems counterproductive to put them on the defensive when the ultimate goal, equal legal rights, can be had with less strife.
It's more than wanting legal rights. It's a desire to feel included as equals in American society. And I don't know why anyone would argue against that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
