NationStates

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.

Compromise isn't always the best solution, bud.

That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

Hang, on, I've got a crazy idea - government hands out marriage licenses to any consenting couple regardless of gender, and people stop throwing a hissy fit over people doing what they don't like.
No-one wants to force homophobic churches to marry two men or women. I'm not sure who would want to get married by someone who hates them.

Unchecked Expansion wrote:Hang, on, I've got a crazy idea - government hands out marriage licenses to any consenting couple regardless of gender, and people stop throwing a hissy fit over people doing what they don't like.
No-one wants to force homophobic churches to marry two men or women. I'm not sure who would want to get married by someone who hates them.

Yeah, just go with this already America.

Greater Cabinda wrote:Compromise isn't always the best solution, bud.

I don't see it as a compromise though.

Karshkovia wrote:

Greater Cabinda wrote:Compromise isn't always the best solution, bud.

I don't see it as a compromise though.

Then it's an entirely useless proposal that would only serve to piss one side off without really solving anything.

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?

Hardened Pyrokinetics wrote:

Unchecked Expansion wrote:Hang, on, I've got a crazy idea - government hands out marriage licenses to any consenting couple regardless of gender, and people stop throwing a hissy fit over people doing what they don't like.
No-one wants to force homophobic churches to marry two men or women. I'm not sure who would want to get married by someone who hates them.

Yeah, just go with this already America.

It's getting better. Give us about 5 years or so.

i have a better idea:

obligatory gay marriages for everyone

you have 3 months to find your same-sex spouse-to-be. if you do not find one, one will be assigned to you. and because we don't want all these gay marriages to undermine the tradition of marriage, no divorces!

Free Soviets wrote:i have a better idea:

obligatory gay marriages for everyone

you have 3 months to find your same-sex spouse-to-be. if you do not find one, one will be assigned to you. and because we don't want all these gay marriages to undermine the tradition of marriage, no divorces!

Dyakovo wrote:That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

No its not. Its not even close, its simply changing the name of the legal process from marriage to "civil union" and allowing gays and such to participate in it.

Karshkovia wrote:

Greater Cabinda wrote:Compromise isn't always the best solution, bud.

I don't see it as a compromise though.

That's good... It isn't one...

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

None of this bullshit civil partnerships like the UK has.

Unchecked Expansion wrote:No-one wants to force homophobic churches to marry two men or women.

i kinda do. but that's just out of spite and because it would be funny. plus, maybe they would shut down rather than be forced to have big flamboyantly gay weddings in them. its win-win.

Your solution is not a unique one, at least not to this forum. Typically the response to such a system follows a format akin to the following:

"There has never been any intention to force churches to marry people, anyways. As such, all your solution does is kowtow to the religious sect wanting 'marriage' to be something special for them, which is not something we should have to do. If the gays want their union to be called a 'marriage', there should be nothing stopping them."

You did avoid the pitfall of having the government recognize them as equal with different names, though, which is a good thing, as otherwise people would suggest that having two different names opens up avenues to pass laws respecting one by name without the other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, although I'm not sure it will sate the desire of most who want 'marriage' to remain hetero in name, as there would be nothing preventing homos from getting their own 'marriage' from a sympathetic church. It's not just about having the name for the hetero union, it's about having a name that's unique and separate from the homo's. And that's a tough order to fill without enforcement, and enforcement isn't really possible without showing favor to one over the other.

Free Soviets wrote:i have a better idea:

obligatory gay marriages for everyone

you have 3 months to find your same-sex spouse-to-be. if you do not find one, one will be assigned to you. and because we don't want all these gay marriages to undermine the tradition of marriage, no divorces!

Just as much of a "solution" as the OP's and much funnier...

Greater Cabinda wrote:Compromise isn't always the best solution, bud.

I don't see it as a compromise though.

Dyakovo wrote:That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

From what I understand, 'Homophobes' don't want gays to even have a civil union. I suggest that the government can only issue civil unions to EVERYONE...only churches then could 'marry' a couple. This way the churches that are pushing this homophobic agenda are marginalized and people are treated equally.

Unchecked Expansion wrote:Hang, on, I've got a crazy idea - government hands out marriage licenses to any consenting couple regardless of gender, and people stop throwing a hissy fit over people doing what they don't like.
No-one wants to force homophobic churches to marry two men or women. I'm not sure who would want to get married by someone who hates them.

I agree but I think this is a quicker, easier solution, and to be honest I have never felt comfortable with a secular government handling marriage (what is by nature a religious event).

Karshkovia wrote: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.

"Civil Union" is eleven letters. "Marriage" is eight. Why not use the shorter word and save trees

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.

Dyakovo wrote:That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

I'd take that compromise. *shrug*

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

Free Soviets wrote:i have a better idea:

obligatory gay marriages for everyone

you have 3 months to find your same-sex spouse-to-be. if you do not find one, one will be assigned to you. and because we don't want all these gay marriages to undermine the tradition of marriage, no divorces!

Better: Make everybody married to everybody.

Since when is gay marriage something that needs a "solution"?

Karshkovia wrote:(what is by nature a religious event).

WTF? Do you have something to back up this "by nature" twaddle?

Libertarian Mesa wrote:I like it. A great compromise! Gay rights and democratic rights are not violated.