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 diagree that it is a different topic but that is beside the point. What are your objections to my proposal?
You know that eliminating government recognition of marriage is not ever going to happen. Straight couples are never going to agree to something that takes away the special rights and tax treatment that go along with marriage.
Your proposal is just a giant copout to avoid discussing the real issue.
However, if you really think that is the way to go, why shouldn't gay couples be given the same marriage rights as straight couples until your new unicorn-like system of civil union for all is a go.
It's been ruled unconstitutional more times that I can remember. Those cases are all working their way up the appeals ladder. Here's the two I'm most familiar with:
The 1st Circuit heard the appeal in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (which in the lower courts resulted in DOMA being ruled unconstitutional) just last month.
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management ruled DOMA unconstitutional, and I believe is scheduled to be hear on appeal by and en banc hearing in the 9th Circuit.
Ruling for those two cases should be out soon. I have little doubt the lower court ruling will be overturned. In either case, even if it goes to the Supreme Court it'll most likely be next year.
My compromise was to allow for civil unions that people could call "marriage" if they wanted to - but would not come with any special benefits from the government. They would be civil contracts, enforceable in court. What is wrong with that?
Apart from the fact that is sounds like a poorly thought out term paper from a Sociology 101 class? Your cunning plan doesn't deal with the fact that currently, a sh.tload of existing law (and existing contracts) outline privileges and obligations for married couples that can't be settled by a contract between the 2 parties - because they involve a 3rd part.
You know that eliminating government recognition of marriage is not ever going to happen. Straight couples are never going to agree to something that takes away the special rights and tax treatment that go along with marriage.
Why are those "special rights" and tax treatment neccesary?
You know that eliminating government recognition of marriage is not ever going to happen. Straight couples are never going to agree to something that takes away the special rights and tax treatment that go along with marriage.
Spousal privilege in court, hospital visitation rights, inheritance law, alimony, immigration - there's a massive complex of law and of pre-existing contracts that would need to be redone.
My compromise was to allow for civil unions that people could call "marriage" if they wanted to - but would not come with any special benefits from the government. They would be civil contracts, enforceable in court. What is wrong with that?
What do you mean by "special benefits"?
Civil marriages are contracts in the law that confer civil, or legal, rights (benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities) to the couples that contract them. They way I was reading your post is that you propose to remove the rights of civil marriage (what you seem to call "special benefits"), thereby rendering the law essentially meaningless. Civil marriage law confers joint rights to couples. That's what it does. If you take those rights out of the equation, then the law does nothing.
Spousal privilege in court, hospital visitation rights, inheritance law, alimony, immigration - there's a massive complex of law and of pre-existing contracts that would need to be redone.
Yep, cop-out.
Why are all of those neccesary to be protected through marriage laws?
Civil marriages are contracts in the law that confer civil, or legal, rights (benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities) to the couples that contract them. They way I was reading your post is that you propose to remove the rights of civil marriage (what you seem to call "special benefits"), thereby rendering the law essentially meaningless. The law confers joint rights to couples. That's what it does. If you take those rights out of the equation, then the law does nothing.
My proposal would make civil unions contracts to a committed relationship - and nothing more. If people wanted contracts that provide the other stuff then they could draw up contracts that do so. Don't you say that gays should be able to marry because they love each other? Then support my plan. It sounds like you are just after the "goodies" that come with marriage. My plan eliminates the benefits for everyone and is the very definition of a fair and reasonable approach. So, why reject it?
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.
