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 believe the Constitution originally never had anything about marriage. If Im wrong, correct me.
The easiest way to settle this is for the government to except all contracts between two consenting adults as a domestic partnership. Thus, allowing those who enter this partnership no matter who each other are, to get the same benefits.
Then, marriage can be used as the definition of those depending on their religion if they have one. Man and woman can continue to get married at a church if they choose. Gays and whomever else (polygamy folks, relatives, etc) can have an institution of their own perform ceremonies.
Marriage can then stay as man and woman for their own religious purposes. And the others can have their partnership with equal benefits.
I believe the Constitution originally never had anything about marriage. If Im wrong, correct me.
The easiest way to settle this is for the government to except all contracts between two consenting adults as a domestic partnership. Thus, allowing those who enter this partnership no matter who each other are, to get the same benefits.
Then, marriage can be used as the definition of those depending on their religion if they have one. Man and woman can continue to get married at a church if they choose. Gays and whomever else (polygamy folks, relatives, etc) can have an institution of their own perform ceremonies.
Marriage can then stay as man and woman for their own religious purposes. And the others can have their partnership with equal benefits.
What is so bad about that?
Nothing at all really.
However, you're just arguing semantics. The rights rights and benefits conferred in a civil partnership are no different than for a "marriage." Would we then say that Jack and Jill aren't really married, because they have a civil partnership agreement (marriage license) from the County Courthouse, but didn't have a church ceremony?
As far as I can tell, it comes down to semantics. I think many gays, lesbians and the like want the word *marriage* to be used to legally acknowledge their love for their partners, not just *partnership*, *civil union*, or any other beat-around-the-bush terminology. The requisite legal benefits never hurt of course, but that's really a tangent for a lot of people.
I believe the Constitution originally never had anything about marriage. If Im wrong, correct me.
The easiest way to settle this is for the government to except all contracts between two consenting adults as a domestic partnership. Thus, allowing those who enter this partnership no matter who each other are, to get the same benefits.
Then, marriage can be used as the definition of those depending on their religion if they have one. Man and woman can continue to get married at a church if they choose. Gays and whomever else (polygamy folks, relatives, etc) can have an institution of their own perform ceremonies.
Marriage can then stay as man and woman for their own religious purposes. And the others can have their partnership with equal benefits.
What is so bad about that?
Are you familiar with the 9th amendment to the US Coantitution?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
People already had the right to marriage prior to the Constitution.
Nothing at all really.
However, you're just arguing semantics. The rights rights and benefits conferred in a civil partnership are no different than for a "marriage." Would we then say that Jack and Jill aren't really married, because they have a civil partnership agreement (marriage license) from the County Courthouse, but didn't have a church ceremony?
Im just saying that technically the definitions are only different based on who is getting married. Perhaps the man and woman dont have to have a ceremony at a church, but they should be able to keep the title of marriage. But all benefits and rights should be equal through out.
If gays or whoever else want to enter a domestic partnership, great. Let them. And they should have all equality such as hospital visits and the like under that.
But as far as morality and perhaps even tax breaks (or you could choose to debate the tax break issue), the government should be out of it. But if the government needs to define any couple, it should be as a domestic partnership.
I'd like to see this also. Government does not define "marriage." Any two people can get a civil union, and then you can go to a church or temple or whatever to get "married."
As far as I can tell, it comes down to semantics. I think many gays, lesbians and the like want the word *marriage* to be used to legally acknowledge their love for their partners, not just *partnership*, *civil union*, or any other beat-around-the-bush terminology.
Then that is absolutely a change of definition. I cant see how you have a marriage without a husband AND a wife. A man and a woman.
I thought gays just wanted the same benefits and the like. And I seriously believe if we go down this road further, the forcing of churches to marry gays will come eventually.
And I seriously believe if we go down this road further, the forcing of churches to marry gays will come eventually.
Well, you are seriously delusional then. Churches already can marry or NOT marry whoever they want; they're protected by the First Amendment. What part of this don't you understand?
Moreover, a church ceremony has absolutely zero legal implication. It is only for show. They can dance around and quote bible passages till they're blue in the face and you aren't married yet. You need a marriage license from the county in which you are married. This is how people change their last name's when getting married. (The church can't do that either.) At least that's how it works in my state.
Then that is absolutely a change of definition. I cant see how you have a marriage without a husband AND a wife. A man and a woman.
I thought gays just wanted the same benefits and the like. And I seriously believe if we go down this road further, the forcing of churches to marry gays will come eventually.
Well darn right it's a change of definition. Instead of just "husband AND a wife", there should be "husband AND a husband" and "wife AND a wife".
Man + woman
Man + man
Woman + woman
Can't get more cut 'n' dry than 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.
