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.
In general, Americans - no matter the state - look at "marriage" as a traditional institution of one man and one woman (look at Prop 8 in California and recently Maine). This is not to say that most Americans wish to keep the gay man as as second class citizen as a whole (yes, I do believe that geographical location really is a factor in the general consensus on the subject). But most people were raised by their biological parents - who were one man and one woman - and the large majority of these parents were married, at least at one time.
Love and marriage envisioned together within American society (on a general level) has always been heterosexual. Do you deny that the acceptance of homosexuality as not an unhealthy societal movement only began to take hold within the last 2 decades? I think that it will continue to move further and further into an accepted place in society, and dissenting ideas will be considered less and less healthy. But acceptance of gay marriage, with marriage still having as much religeous (often anti-gay) connotations as it does, civil unions for gay and the push to make all marriages civil unions seems a quicker route to acceptance to me. If gays gave the religeous right 'their word', I really do think that it would progress much faster for them when it comes to this issue as the majority of the country wishes to be anti-bigot/anti-discrimination, and a sizeable amount of religeon presently leans toward the opposite of that.
As soon as the movement changes it's direction for civil unions to be synonymous to marriage (possibly pushing for a law to change the word marriage to civil union for all legal purposes), I think they then will get what they desire.
Your logic seems sound, but I'll never understand the fascination with the word marriage. Myself, I couldn't care less who marries whom nor what they call it.
moved from another thread...hope the poster dosent mind..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I agree with you, but one of the problems is that civil unions have been banned in 18 states. Civil unions are already legal in 9 states, and same-sex marriage is legal in 5 additional states. So, that leaves 18 states where civil unions are an option.
Keep in mind that there's not a monolithic opinion among gays on this issue. There are probably millions of gays who would like to see civil unions legalized nationwide.
The legal process is messy, and the battle is state-by-state, so that makes it even harder to have a unified movement on this issue.
Well, the thought of changing the lawbooks to say 'civil union' is equivalent to marriage as a national law making it legal througout the U.S. would rectify that situation. Being that I am not supportive of an activist judiciary branch, I much prefer and would highly support such a move.
Well, the thought of changing the lawbooks to say 'civil union' is equivalent to marriage as a national law making it legal througout the U.S. would rectify that situation. Being that I am not supportive of an activist judiciary branch, I much prefer and would highly support such a move.
I agree. I never understood why the gay rights movement burns so much time, resources and energy on getting same sex civil unions called marriages in the small number of states were they exist (i.e. CA) instead of pushing for same sex civil unions in all states and at the federal level.
Well, the thought of changing the lawbooks to say 'civil union' is equivalent to marriage as a national law making it legal througout the U.S. would rectify that situation. Being that I am not supportive of an activist judiciary branch, I much prefer and would highly support such a move.
Marriage laws are determined by each individual state. A national law might be nice, but the states that have banned civil unions would kick and scream bloody murder.
I find a whole lot of fault with your logic; first of all is the " religious right " also wants to prevent civil unions and domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians which you neglected to mention. We are supposed to be country that keeps religion separate from our politics, not one that bends to its will. And could you please define what is so "unhealthy" about gay marriage? It has already been proven that marriage and commitment are healthy for anyone regardless of sex or sexual orientation.
Another is that many people of this current generation are not and have not been raised by their biological parents, but by one or more step parents. Divorce has broken up the nuclear family and if anything has encouraged infidelity in straight marriages.
Many people do want to keep the LGBTQ people as second class, they want to prevent us from being teachers, doctors or parents, besides banning us from marrying the person we love and want to commit to.
Do you think that only the 'religeous right' oppose gay marriange? I didn't think that Obama was considered apart of the 'religeous right'. I think that it is very apparent that not only the 'religeous right' oppose gay marriage. I have never said that gay marriage is 'unhealthy' - could you please show me where I did??
How does anything else you have pointed out actually discuss my thought?
I agree. I never understood why the gay rights movement burns so much time, resources and energy on getting same sex civil unions called marriages in the small number of states were they exist (i.e. CA) instead of pushing for same sex civil unions in all states and at the federal level.
The push is there, but when you've got states that have either banned civil unions or who refuse to enact civil union legislation, not much can be done.
Marriage laws are determined by each individual state. A national law might be nice, but the states that have banned civil unions would kick and scream bloody murder.
Yes but the feds could start recognizing same sex CU's for SSI and other areas in their purview. Would'nt that would be a bigger win for committed SS couples then getting their civil union called a marriage?
Marriage laws are determined by each individual state. A national law might be nice, but the states that have banned civil unions would kick and scream bloody murder.
I am sure that many did the same when Prohibition was repealed also...but it iwas worth it, would you not say?
The push is there, but when you've got states that have either banned civil unions or who refuse to enact civil union legislation, not much can be done.
I agree there are practicalities. SC or UT are not likely to pass SSCU's anytime soon, but what about more hospitable places like IL or NJ? That would seem to me to be the key battleground right now, along w/ the feds.
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.
moved from another thread...hope the poster dosent mind..
