A solution for gay marriage

[Dyakovo]

I like it.

You would... Which is just further evidence of how bad an idea it is.

[Seperate Vermont]

ya ya "civil union"

but thats such a homely term. and it hardly allows for "we're civil unioned" "we've been civil unioned for 25 years" "im hoping that my daughter will civil union her girlfriend some day"

etc

we ought to call it something more....linguistically common

how about MARRIAGE/MARRY?

Oh, no, we can't call it marriage, lest we offend people that consider marriage to be reserved only for one group to use and define.

[Wilgrove]

First off, this isn't a rant for or against gay marriage but a possible solution that could be acceptable to all sides of the issue.

My thought is that Instead of issuing marriage licenses, the Government would be limited to issuing 'civil union licenses' instead for any couple, gay or straight with the same rights currently associated with marriage licenses. If a couple wishes to be married, they could find a church which then would perform a marriage ceremony over the couple and sanctify it by whatever religious belief that couple chose. This way, churches that refuse to marry gay couples wouldn't need to, and those churches that welcomed gay couples would be allowed to marry them.

In the Government's eyes, all people...all couples...would be equal via civil unions. The large religious sects wouldn't be able to force their views/beliefs on the entire populous. "Marriage" would probably still be used by the general public to talk about these unions regardless if a marriage ceremony was performed by a church or not....and being married in a church wouldn't do anything more than provide a ceremony for the couple...as it is now.

Again, a win-win for all sides.

That sounds too much like separate but equal.

I have a counter-proposal for you, either everyone can be legally married, or no one can be legally married, all marriages past, present, and future will be dissolved and declared Null and Void until everyone has the right to the institution of marriage.

[Malgrave]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

[Karshkovia]

A solution for gay marriage is to allow marriage between same sex couples.

None of this bullshit civil partnerships like the UK has.

Here's the thing though. The Puritans, founders of America...you know those uptight religious nuts that were so right wing that they were kicked out of ENGLAND...decided that marriages should be handled in a secular manner (because the church of England basically would refuse to marry couples that were not from the church). We as a nation just kinda stuck with that notion since it had been part of the settler's beliefs, i.e. we are really stuck in the past. With how far we have come and with the separation of church and state in the US, I believe it is time to let churches handle the religious marriages and the Government handle the secular civil unions.

Everyone is equal.

[Libertarian Mesa]

I like it. A great compromise! Gay rights and democratic rights are not violated.

What Palming your face for?

[Libertarian Mesa]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

[Flameswroth]

As I've said numerous times, in the US all marriages are already civil unions, because no religious ceremony is required. The anti-gay people simply want to deny gays the rights that they themselves enjoy out of some misguided ... well, I don't know what to call it.

I think it's more primal, or dare I say junvenile, than that, personally.

By and large, I don't think people are thinking, "I want to prevent gay murrj so they can't visit each other in the hospital, or be next of kin. That'll show 'em!" I think people are just tapping into the child-like notion of 'I don't want other people to have what I have, because it makes mine less special.'

Remember as a child (or if you were that 'mature' kid, remember other children) how sometimes your toy was cool because it was your toy, and no one else's? If someone else has that thing, yours seemed less special. If you were anything like me, you became fiercely protective of it, and made sure no one else could have the same thing. I think that's more of what people are tapping into right now - the erroneous notion that gays having it devalues their own, the one they thought was 'special'. If you grow up believing and thinking that a man and a woman together is a unique and special pairing, the endorsement of other lifestyles by legitimate legal recognition really slaps that around, and makes people defensive.

People need to realize that if that's so big of a part of why the male-female relationship is special in your eyes, maybe you need to re-evaluate the meaning of relationships...and this is coming from me, an openly bigoted homophobe!

[Farnhamia]

What Palming your face for?

Separate but equal protects no one's rights.

[Seperate Vermont]

A solution for gay marriage is to allow marriage between same sex couples.

None of this bullshit civil partnerships like the UK has.

Here's the thing though. The Puritans, founders of America...you know those uptight religious nuts that were so right wing that they were kicked out of ENGLAND...decided that marriages should be handled in a secular manner (because the church of England basically would refuse to marry couples that were not from the church). We as a nation just kinda stuck with that notion since it had been part of the settler's beliefs, i.e. we are really stuck in the past. With how far we have come and with the separation of church and state in the US, I believe it is time to let churches handle the religious marriages and the Government handle the secular civil unions.

Everyone is equal.

Will we let churches or the government define marriage, however? Or worse, let churches define it for the government.

[Malgrave]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

What people are these? Homophobes?

[The Parkus Empire]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

People do want it.

[Keronians]

No, gays deserve to have the right to get married legally.

Now, if a Church is too homophobic to see that the couple is no different to conventional couples, that's their own problem.

[Wilgrove]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

Ehhh actually, according to Gallup.



Link

[Seperate Vermont]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

America can do much better than hiding behind that excuse.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What Palming your face for?

Separate but equal protects no one's rights.

This is not a case of "separate but equal." EVERYONE would have the same license regardless of sexual orientation, and those who want a religious service can get it just like they've always done.

[Libertarian Mesa]

People do not want it.

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

Religious extremists no longer count as people.

Even God calls them sheep.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I like it.

You would... Which is just further evidence of how bad an idea it is.

Ok, then what about me?

[Wilgrove]

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

Prop 8 is Unconstitutional because it violates the civil rights of homosexuals when it comes to the issue of marriage.

[Libertarian Mesa]

People do not want it.

Ehhh actually, according to Gallup.



Link

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

People do not want it.

America can do much better than hiding behind that excuse.

What do you mean? If America is not a bastion of democracy and freedom?

[The Parkus Empire]

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

Ah, that's a few years old. Things have changed, friendo. Besides, that's just one state when we're talking Federal shit here.

[Seperate Vermont]

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

People do not decide how to interpret the law merely by some notion of "mandate".

[Tergnitz]

People do not want it.

What people are these? Homophobes?

The majority of Americans, otherwise it would be a law.

You know who wants it, liberal elitists who trump the rights of homosexuals while dismissing religious traditionalists as 'backwards' and 'not worthy of having an opinion.' Liberals are meant to be for equality right, an equal say for each person. So why are they forcing the rest of society to adopt their view towards homosexuals?

[North Defese]

Everyone who argues against this compromise more than likely scream for the government to maintain a seperation of church and state. Yet having the government forcing religious institutions to perform services that they would otherwise refuse to do so and find against their religious beliefs is rather hypocritical.

Since marriage is a religious matter sanctioned and handed out by religious institutions, the government shouldn't have the power to touch it.

This issue does have two sides however, as it would prevent states from banning the right of religious institutions who would otherwise have no other problem with the marriage of two same sex couples is legally forbiddon.

This issue in time will either be seen as people today see the issue of marriage between whites and blacks, or it will continue to be an issue for as long as there are people around to complain.

I see no problem in the government handing out papers or whatever that acknowledge that they are in a union, but I do have a problem with forcing churches to sanction a pratice they do not agree with, and one they should be legally allowed to refuse.

Not that I promote intolerance against homosexuals, which would be ironic.