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.
As I see it, there are three options for marriage.
1. The government opens marriage to any 2 consenting adults.
2. The government has civil unions for any two consenting adults, and no marriage.
3. the government gets out of marriage all together. No recognition, benefits, or privileges.
I am limiting this to only two because the legal framework we currently have is made for two people.
The 14th amendment says that ALL persons are to be afforded the same rights, and privileges. There is no way around this.
As I see it, there are three options for marriage.
1. The government opens marriage to any 2 consenting adults.
2. The government has civil unions for any two consenting adults, and no marriage.
3. the government gets out of marriage all together. No recognition, benefits, or privileges.
I am limiting this to only two because the legal framework we currently have is made for two people.
The 14th amendment says that ALL persons are to be afforded the same rights, and privileges. There is no way around this.
Which do you think should happen, and why?
Why wouldn't keeping marriage between one man and one woman be option #4?
Marriage is kept as is, and is left to the states to decide what they wish to do. It's not an issue that the federal government should get involved in.
Either one or two. I don't care what it's called - only that all persons have equal access to the benefits and protections of it.
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
sure, leave marriage between a man and a woman, and let there be civil unions for everyone else. I have no problems with them having the same benefits, my problem is with the term marriage being used for anything other then a man and a woman.
I voted Other as I don't find your poll offers a suitable range or combination or alternatives.
I support 'Civil Unions for All' but I don't agree with 'No Government Recognition'
I'm for local governments offering a Magistrate (or other) to swear/affirm a Civil Union between any two consenting adults. These unions would be a binding agreement that is valid anywhere in the U.S. and/or recognized by any other country.
I do NOT support 'Marriage for All'
Or that is, I couldn't care less about marriage. I take marriage to be a cultural phenomena related to those cultural practices which today are performed by one's church or other cultural enterprise. Turns out the 'Church' or enterprise official has the government recognized ability to swear/affirm a Civil Union (see above) which is enhanced with performance art. So you can do what you please with that option... I will not be there.
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.
