61% of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage

[Pop23]

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

How much will be spent in changing the language in all those statutes, laws, and acts because someone SUDDENLY is feeling possessive about the word "marriage"? Where were the religious people when non-religious people were getting "married"?

I couldn't see much money at all being spent. Where am I wrong?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Many of us conservatives have no problem with homosexual "legal unions,' but we don't want it to be called "marriage." I wonder if the OP percentage quote was inclusive of that?

Q.B108
Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/file...erations-appendix-b-Topline-Questionnaire.pdf

Nope, it used "marry legally". The percentage would have been even higher if that had been an option.



>>>>

 

[Antares]

It is time for my side to let this go.....my sister already married her partner....the Right is on the wrong side of this.

 

[whitehall]

The link is about taxes. What mainstream polling database determined that "young republicans" support homosexual unions?

 

[WorldWatcher]

For a great deal more lawyer time and money....AND...not required to be recognized thru-out all the states. Is this what you really want....just so gays can't have marriage?

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

I think your wrong. It seems to me that marriage, as in traditional marriage is a concept that's outlived it's time

I would actually think we would want it, the word, to become obsolete because of the historical connotations connected with segregation, homophobia and such.

OK, so let's go back to my questions that I'd though you answered. Which you may not have so I need clarification to understand...


#1 Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

#2 Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?


*****************************

So under option #1, individual could come to any agreement they want - however the State would not recognize that agreement for government purposes. For taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, military assignments, health insurance, etc. - everyone would be considered "Single" and their next of kin would be father/mother, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, cousin (in order of precedence) for anything no covered under either a specific Will or medical power of attorney. [But be aware that where spouses are recognized as the default "next of kin" even with a medical power of attorney or Will these can be challenged (and families have won) when they disagree with the POA or Will.)

Under option #2, the government would recognize equally all Religious Certificates of Marriage issued by a house of Worship. So from a government standpoint they would recognize a same-sex couple equally married as they would a different-sex couple as long as it was performed by a religious organization. Since there are Churches in all 50 states that will marry a same-sex couple, what does this achieve?




So which is it?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The link is about taxes. What mainstream polling database determined that "young republicans" support homosexual unions?

Of the two biggies Pew and Gallup are (IMHO) probably two of the most well known mainstream polling organizations.

This was by Pew.

Young Republicans favor same-sex marriage | Pew Research Center


>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

The link is about taxes. What mainstream polling database determined that "young republicans" support homosexual unions?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/file...erations-appendix-b-Topline-Questionnaire.pdf

 

[Pop23]

I don't believe that is what Pop was saying. He was proposing that Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages for all couples (same- and different-sex) and that "marriage" be regulated to a religious term.

Civil Unions (recognized by the government) would be equally applied to same- and different-sex couples.


(Kind of a waste of time as in a generation everyone will still refer to them as marriages anyway. But maybe not a bad intermediate step while the younger generation - who doesn't care as much anyway - become the more dominant older generation.)



>>>>

I think your wrong. It seems to me that marriage, as in traditional marriage is a concept that's outlived it's time

I would actually think we would want it, the word, to become obsolete because of the historical connotations connected with segregation, homophobia and such.

OK, so let's go back to my questions that I'd though you answered. Which you may not have so I need clarification to understand...


#1 Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

#2 Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?


*****************************

So under option #1, individual could come to any agreement they want - however the State would not recognize that agreement for government purposes. For taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, military assignments, health insurance, etc. - everyone would be considered "Single" and their next of kin would be father/mother, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, cousin (in order of precedence) for anything no covered under either a specific Will or medical power of attorney. [But be aware that where spouses are recognized as the default "next of kin" even with a medical power of attorney or Will these can be challenged (and families have won) when they disagree with the POA or Will.)

Under option #2, the government would recognize equally all Religious Certificates of Marriage issued by a house of Worship. So from a government standpoint they would recognize a same-sex couple equally married as they would a different-sex couple as long as it was performed by a religious organization. Since there are Churches in all 50 states that will marry a same-sex couple, what does this achieve?




So which is it?


>>>>

Why would the state WANT to be involved in a religious identity?

All other aspects, now available to legally married couples, would be the same in the new unification of individuals. ALL INCLUSIVE. PERIOD.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think your wrong. It seems to me that marriage, as in traditional marriage is a concept that's outlived it's time

I would actually think we would want it, the word, to become obsolete because of the historical connotations connected with segregation, homophobia and such.

OK, so let's go back to my questions that I'd though you answered. Which you may not have so I need clarification to understand...


#1 Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

#2 Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?


*****************************

So under option #1, individual could come to any agreement they want - however the State would not recognize that agreement for government purposes. For taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, military assignments, health insurance, etc. - everyone would be considered "Single" and their next of kin would be father/mother, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, cousin (in order of precedence) for anything no covered under either a specific Will or medical power of attorney. [But be aware that where spouses are recognized as the default "next of kin" even with a medical power of attorney or Will these can be challenged (and families have won) when they disagree with the POA or Will.)

Under option #2, the government would recognize equally all Religious Certificates of Marriage issued by a house of Worship. So from a government standpoint they would recognize a same-sex couple equally married as they would a different-sex couple as long as it was performed by a religious organization. Since there are Churches in all 50 states that will marry a same-sex couple, what does this achieve?




So which is it?


>>>>

Why would the state WANT to be involved in a religious identity?

The State isn't involved in a religious identity. Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage are two completely separate entities. One is granted by a house of worship, the other exists under secular law.

All other aspects, now available to legally married couples, would be the same in the new unification of individuals. ALL INCLUSIVE. PERIOD.

OK, then I didn't misunderstand. Everything remains the same as it is not, it's just that the government doesn't sue the word "marriage". Everything available now to legally married couples would be the same under whatever you want to call this new "unification of individuals". Since in all inclusive, this would include same- and different-sex couple.

That is STILL government recogntion and the awarding of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under this new name.




That is fundamentally different then what Politico suggested when he said the government wouldn't recognize shit.



Under your method all those things I mentioned still exist under the law for this new "unification". Under his method, the government doesn't recognize shit so those things I listed go "poof" and don't exist anymore. Do you see what I was saying?



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

OK, so let's go back to my questions that I'd though you answered. Which you may not have so I need clarification to understand...


#1 Do you mean that there would be no recognition of Religious Marriages by the government, that all people would be considered "single" for all legal matters like taxes, property, medical decisions couldn't be made under the law for a spouse without a separate medical power of attorney, that there would be no spousal housing for military families if they didn't have children (no medical for spouses also), etc., etc.?

or

#2 Do you mean that the government would recognize all Religious Weddings equally. That means that the government would recognize in all 50 states a Marriage Certificate issued to a Same-sex couple by a Church equally with a Marriage Certificate issued to a different-sex couple by a Church?


*****************************

So under option #1, individual could come to any agreement they want - however the State would not recognize that agreement for government purposes. For taxes, inheritance, medical decision making, military assignments, health insurance, etc. - everyone would be considered "Single" and their next of kin would be father/mother, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, cousin (in order of precedence) for anything no covered under either a specific Will or medical power of attorney. [But be aware that where spouses are recognized as the default "next of kin" even with a medical power of attorney or Will these can be challenged (and families have won) when they disagree with the POA or Will.)

Under option #2, the government would recognize equally all Religious Certificates of Marriage issued by a house of Worship. So from a government standpoint they would recognize a same-sex couple equally married as they would a different-sex couple as long as it was performed by a religious organization. Since there are Churches in all 50 states that will marry a same-sex couple, what does this achieve?




So which is it?


>>>>

Why would the state WANT to be involved in a religious identity?

All other aspects, now available to legally married couples, would be the same in the new unification of individuals. ALL INCLUSIVE. PERIOD.

OK, then I didn't misunderstand. Everything remains the same as it is not, it's just that the government doesn't sue the word "marriage". Everything available now to legally married couples would be the same under whatever you want to call this new "unification of individuals". Since in all inclusive, this would include same- and different-sex couple.

That is STILL government recogntion and the awarding of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under this new name.




That is fundamentally different then what Politico suggested when he said the government wouldn't recognize shit.



Under your method all those things I mentioned still exist under the law for this new "unification". Under his method, the government doesn't recognize shit so those things I listed go "poof" and don't exist anymore. Do you see what I was saying?



>>>>

Because I wish to be absolutely clear, this is absolutely what I have been trying to say. That is only fair.

The term marriage should only be used in a religious connotation. If any church wants to Marry a same sex couple, their business, not mine, not the State.

Unification of individuals, having the same rights afforded currently married couples, becomes the business of the State (for tax, inheritance and many other reasons) and the individuals involved in the contractual arrangement.

Using the two separate terms also increases the separation between the Church and the State. That can't be a bad thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would the state WANT to be involved in a religious identity?

All other aspects, now available to legally married couples, would be the same in the new unification of individuals. ALL INCLUSIVE. PERIOD.

OK, then I didn't misunderstand. Everything remains the same as it is not, it's just that the government doesn't sue the word "marriage". Everything available now to legally married couples would be the same under whatever you want to call this new "unification of individuals". Since in all inclusive, this would include same- and different-sex couple.

That is STILL government recogntion and the awarding of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under this new name.




That is fundamentally different then what Politico suggested when he said the government wouldn't recognize shit.



Under your method all those things I mentioned still exist under the law for this new "unification". Under his method, the government doesn't recognize shit so those things I listed go "poof" and don't exist anymore. Do you see what I was saying?



>>>>

Because I wish to be absolutely clear, this is absolutely what I have been trying to say. That is only fair.

The term marriage should only be used in a religious connotation. If any church wants to Marry a same sex couple, their business, not mine, not the State.

Unification of individuals, having the same rights afforded currently married couples, becomes the business of the State (for tax, inheritance and many other reasons) and the individuals involved in the contractual arrangement.

Using the two separate terms also increases the separation between the Church and the State. That can't be a bad thing.

So it's option #2 with everything remaining the same as it is not but called a Civil Union or Civil Unification - just not using Civil Marriage.

OK, that's what I thought you said. But when I tried to explain to Bod your postion, you replied with "I think you are wrong".


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

OK, then I didn't misunderstand. Everything remains the same as it is not, it's just that the government doesn't sue the word "marriage". Everything available now to legally married couples would be the same under whatever you want to call this new "unification of individuals". Since in all inclusive, this would include same- and different-sex couple.

That is STILL government recogntion and the awarding of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under this new name.




That is fundamentally different then what Politico suggested when he said the government wouldn't recognize shit.



Under your method all those things I mentioned still exist under the law for this new "unification". Under his method, the government doesn't recognize shit so those things I listed go "poof" and don't exist anymore. Do you see what I was saying?



>>>>

Because I wish to be absolutely clear, this is absolutely what I have been trying to say. That is only fair.

The term marriage should only be used in a religious connotation. If any church wants to Marry a same sex couple, their business, not mine, not the State.

Unification of individuals, having the same rights afforded currently married couples, becomes the business of the State (for tax, inheritance and many other reasons) and the individuals involved in the contractual arrangement.

Using the two separate terms also increases the separation between the Church and the State. That can't be a bad thing.

So it's option #2 with everything remaining the same as it is not but called a Civil Union or Civil Unification - just not using Civil Marriage.

OK, that's what I thought you said. But when I tried to explain to Bod your postion, you replied with "I think you are wrong".


>>>>

Oh, I see. Read my response and that part was not clear. I was trying to say that those civilly united would not use the word Married. Maybe they would in the near future, but as time passes it would evolve, or at least I think it would.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is time for my side to let this go.....my sister already married her partner....the Right is on the wrong side of this.

And my brother his.

Let it go.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, I see. Read my response and that part was not clear. I was trying to say that those civilly united would not use the word Married. Maybe they would in the near future, but as time passes it would evolve, or at least I think it would.

Roger. I can hang with that.

Have a good night Pop.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Oh, I see. Read my response and that part was not clear. I was trying to say that those civilly united would not use the word Married. Maybe they would in the near future, but as time passes it would evolve, or at least I think it would.

Roger. I can hang with that.

Have a good night Pop.


>>>>

Take care