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 am an independent but lean conservative and I support civil unions for gay people, absolutely. Just not a fan of the marriage thing. I think they should have every benefit of any other couple, taxes, health care proxy, living wills, etc.
I am an independent but lean conservative and I support civil unions for gay people, absolutely. Just not a fan of the marriage thing. I think they should have every benefit of any other couple, taxes, health care proxy, living wills, etc.
Kinda "separate but equal," no?
But, in the end, if it's Civil Unions, as long as Straight people can choose to enter into "Civil Unions" as well, it probably won't be a big deal. Then again, it's a losing battle, because EVERYONE in media, pop culture, etc. will refer to two "civily unioned" gay people as "married."
But, in the end, if it's Civil Unions, as long as Straight people can choose to enter into "Civil Unions" as well, it probably won't be a big deal. Then again, it's a losing battle, because EVERYONE in media, pop culture, etc. will refer to two "civily unioned" gay people as "married."
I think it does exist, called common law or domestic partners people who live together after a certain number of years. But I'm not a lawyer.
I am an independent but lean conservative and I support civil unions for gay people, absolutely. Just not a fan of the marriage thing. I think they should have every benefit of any other couple, taxes, health care proxy, living wills, etc.
So you thinks gays should get the same collection of civil rights - but it should be called something different for them because they're gay? Can you think of another instance in our law where we call something one thing for one classification of people and then call the identical thing by another name for other classifications of people?
And why stop at gay/straight?. Why not call it a "Civil Marriage" for straight people, a "Civil Union" for gay people, a "Holy Civil Marriage" for Christians, a "Civil Shacking-Up" for Atheists, a "Civil Cohabitation" for blacks, etc, etc, etc.
I thought we were past separate but equal in the US.
Slavery, child abuse, wife beating, public execution.... used to be that way too. Luckily some of us have evolved!
They still happen. But it's generally not the Christians doing those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
So you thinks gays should get the same collection of civil rights - but it should be called something different for them because they're gay? Can you think of another instance in our law where we call something one thing for one classification of people and then call the identical thing by another name for other classifications of people?
You're right. So instead of creating a new class of marriage for gay people let's just leave it as it is and treat them the same as everyone else.
So you thinks gays should get the same collection of civil rights - but it should be called something different for them because they're gay? Can you think of another instance in our law where we call something one thing for one classification of people and then call the identical thing by another name for other classifications of people?
And why stop at gay/straight?. Why not call it a "Civil Marriage" for straight people, a "Civil Union" for gay people, a "Holy Civil Marriage" for Christians, a "Civil Shacking-Up" for Atheists, a "Civil Cohabitation" for blacks, etc, etc, etc.
I thought we were past separate but equal in the US.
right. My opinion is marriage is between a man and a women, not 2 men, not 2 fish, not 2 women, not 2 dogs dressed in dopey outfits, not 2 cross dressers, whatever else you can think of. My opinion, I am entitled to it, it is shared by many, and I don't see me changing my opinion anytime soon. End of story.
Common law marriage is not something recognized by all states. Only 10-ish states have some form of common law marriage.
right, it should be an issue for the States. If you don't have common laws in your State, you are free to move to one that has it. That's what makes us the United States of America, and not the Federal Government of America.
right. My opinion is marriage is between a man and a women, not 2 men, not 2 fish, not 2 women, not 2 dogs dressed in dopey outfits, not 2 cross dressers, whatever else you can think of. My opinion, I am entitled to it, it is shared by many, and I don't see me changing my opinion anytime soon. End of story.
I'm very confused. Civil marriage is nothing but a contract between two people, given power by the state, that confers to them a collection of 1400 civil rights. Out of one corner of you mouth your say gays deserve access to these right, but then out of the other corner you say they don't and that civil marriage contracts should only be for heterosexuals.
I think you're confusing a religious, or traditional marriage, with a civil marriage. They are unrelated things. Your church or your family can define a marriage however it wants or doesn't want - those myriad definitions have no (or at least shouldn't have) bearing on civil law and civil contracts.
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.
