Civil Unions: A Step Foward

[Anguille]

All I'm saying is that a moral objection to anything is a valid point of view. I'm tired of being told that I don't have a valid objection because it's based a moral principle. You can disagree with where I draw my line but to say that I don't have a point at all is ridiculous as I believe I've already demonstrated.
.

I agree with you. Having a moral objection to something is not the same as having a religious objection. And actually any kind of sincere objection is valid though not necessarily legitimate in terms of our Constitution. This country was founded on dissent. If we did not disagree and debate all options, we would not be a democratic nation.

 

[Amanda]

You're all for civil unions, which is supposedly marriage but really isn't. It treats homosexuals like second class citizens. It's like you saying "Hey African Americans, you won't be counted as citizens but you'll still be 3/5 of a person!"

If you'd stop acting so rabid and just had discussions you might see others points of view more clearly. I'm for civil unions for EVERYONE.

That is where we can apply your logic elsewhere. There is no reason why Gay Marriage should be illegal, especially if your argument is religion since there is a SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

I don't believe I've mentioned religion.

So please, take your backwards logic arguments elsewhere.

It's unfortunate that you feel so threatened by others ideas.

 

[Modbert]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

 

[Amanda]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

I believe civil unions should be what the state recognizes. Marriages would be private affairs. Then if gay people wanted to get married and they had some entity (church or whatever) that sanctioned that then they could get married too.

 

[sealybobo]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

I believe civil unions should be what the state recognizes. Marriages would be private affairs. Then if gay people wanted to get married and they had some entity (church or whatever) that sanctioned that then they could get married too.

I just found a great op ed piece from Thom Hartmann. Did you know that:

When the Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts recently looked at constitutions written in the 1700s, inspired by the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, they discovered therein the rights of gays and lesbians to civil unions and marriage.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple, and entirely in keeping with the egalitarian vision of this nation's Founders. It's time for us to honestly and frankly face and accept that fact, and act appropriately.

ThomHartmann.com - Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

This is a great piece. Here are some tidbits that I liked learning about conservatives back in the day:

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."

And the idea that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of often-unpopular minorities so shocked Colonial conservatives that many took up arms against the revolutionaries, fled to Canada, or returned to England.

George Washington was speaking directly to the issue of civil rights when, in 1790, he said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
The history of America and the history of modern democracies is one of expanding civil rights. First we freed white males from the kings and queens. Then we freed those of us whose skin varied in color. Then we freed women. While none of us are yet completely free, the ancient kings are returning in the guise of multinational corporations, and the battles for civil rights continue against conservative forces, it's essential that we recognized that "We, the People" means all of us.

ThomHartmann.com - Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

 

[sealybobo]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

Where do jews get married? How about Catholics? How about muslims? Churches?

Ok, now, where do all of them go to get a divorce? Court?

So it is ok for the churches to discriminate, but the state can and should not.

 

[Modbert]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

I believe civil unions should be what the state recognizes. Marriages would be private affairs. Then if gay people wanted to get married and they had some entity (church or whatever) that sanctioned that then they could get married too.

So you're basically saying that Marriage should be kept for those who want it. But in the public eye, Civil Unions are the word and this would include everyone on a equal footing including Gays?

 

[Amanda]

So you believe all marriages should be Civil Unions? Just completely get rid of marriage in general?

Personally, the smartest idea would be to get rid of the gender question on marriage applications.

I believe civil unions should be what the state recognizes. Marriages would be private affairs. Then if gay people wanted to get married and they had some entity (church or whatever) that sanctioned that then they could get married too.

So you're basically saying that Marriage should be kept for those who want it. But in the public eye, Civil Unions are the word and this would include everyone on a equal footing including Gays?

Yup

 

[jillian]

No...she's talking about taking marriage, which has always been the province of the state, and handing it over to the church because THEY want the word.

 

[Amanda]

No...she's talking about taking marriage, which has always been the province of the state, and handing it over to the church because THEY want the word.

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

 

[KittenKoder]

You do realize that marriage is more than just two humans being together, right? The word itself means joining. The rituals are all religious and have no place in our government. Civil unions ARE marriage because they are a joining, though gay people will be more likely to marry for love than straight people, my parents were sadly not the exception but the rule, they did not marry for love.

You do realize that marriage is more than just the joining of any two humans. Just because a miniscule number of humans are born with the desire to partner outside of heterosexuality does not mean that that aberrant situation should be called a "marriage". There is no reason to allow a "same gendered marriage" other than for for the very "legal loopholes" that those that advocate for it keep using. There is nothing that separates homosexuality from other sexual deviants and allowing that behavioral result of a gestational anomaly to be called a "marriage" is an insult to human intelligence.

You marry a nut and bolt. You marry solder to a PCB. Marriage is a term for a joining. Civil Unions are the same thing as marriage, get your religious garbage out of it and then you can have laws involved with it, but as long as there is religion in human marriage it is ILLEGAL.

 

[elvis]

You're all for civil unions, which is supposedly marriage but really isn't. It treats homosexuals like second class citizens. It's like you saying "Hey African Americans, you won't be counted as citizens but you'll still be 3/5 of a person!"

If you'd stop acting so rabid and just had discussions you might see others points of view more clearly. I'm for civil unions for EVERYONE.

That is where we can apply your logic elsewhere. There is no reason why Gay Marriage should be illegal, especially if your argument is religion since there is a SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

I don't believe I've mentioned religion.

So please, take your backwards logic arguments elsewhere.

It's unfortunate that you feel so threatened by others ideas.

and he wonders why he gets compared to Hitler.

 

[jillian]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

 

[manu1959]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

i agree.......they should be as miserable as the rest of us............

 

[Amanda]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

All you're proving to me is that you're seeing what you want to see instead of what I've written.

I know what "state" means. I'm also pretty sure couples were joining together when the "state" consisted of getting the tribal chief or holy man's blessing for the union. This would predate statutes by a good deal of time. But regardless that's a stupid argument to be having.

I haven't addressed how things are now, I've given my idea for a solution. If you want to argue why my idea is flawed by all means tear it up, but so far you're holding up examples that aren't mine so I'm not going to bother to engage.

And for the record I don't care what you care to say. Say whatever you want. You can have a tea party with imaginary friends and call it dining with the Queen for all I care. If you want to tell me why what I have proposed isn't equitable to someone/group then I would care to hear that.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

All you're proving to me is that you're seeing what you want to see instead of what I've written.

I know what "state" means. I'm also pretty sure couples were joining together when the "state" consisted of getting the tribal chief or holy man's blessing for the union. This would predate statutes by a good deal of time. But regardless that's a stupid argument to be having.

I haven't addressed how things are now, I've given my idea for a solution. If you want to argue why my idea is flawed by all means tear it up, but so far you're holding up examples that aren't mine so I'm not going to bother to engage.

And for the record I don't care what you care to say. Say whatever you want. You can have a tea party with imaginary friends and call it dining with the Queen for all I care. If you want to tell me why what I have proposed isn't equitable to someone/group then I would care to hear that.

Actually, while I agree with your concept fully, marriage or any form of union like it was actually initiated by the state (tribal or otherwise). However the modern version of marriage is VERY new, not the legal rights but the way human marriage in the US is perceived. Hand fastings (which predates modern marriage by thousands of years) was a temporary "while in love" union and were the most common in tribal nations where property wasn't much of an issue. Property rights weren't even integrated until much later when the unions were formed solely for power and the uniting of families, it had nothing to do with love, hand fastings were still used for love instead but was purely religious and not legal in any way. Organized religious then merged the two (specifically in Europe). However almost all human marriages then were still for power and privilege not for love, they had other relationships on the side. Monogamy wasn't introduced until later ...

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

Then is it fair to say marriage is a right conferred by statute, that when the statutes were written they were intended to apply only to heterosexual couples and therefore gays have no right to marry?

 

[jillian]

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

"State" means both the State of (say, NY) and "government". Marriage is a creature of statute and, according to Marriage Equity for All, confers 1,324 property rights with it. And if someone can be "married" in a church, then the Church but only have a civil union elsewhere... then religion is usurping a secular right.

For the record, I don't care to say I was "civil unioned"....I was married. And gays should have the same right to say that as I do.

All you're proving to me is that you're seeing what you want to see instead of what I've written.

I know what "state" means. I'm also pretty sure couples were joining together when the "state" consisted of getting the tribal chief or holy man's blessing for the union. This would predate statutes by a good deal of time. But regardless that's a stupid argument to be having.

I haven't addressed how things are now, I've given my idea for a solution. If you want to argue why my idea is flawed by all means tear it up, but so far you're holding up examples that aren't mine so I'm not going to bother to engage.

And for the record I don't care what you care to say. Say whatever you want. You can have a tea party with imaginary friends and call it dining with the Queen for all I care. If you want to tell me why what I have proposed isn't equitable to someone/group then I would care to hear that.

and frankly, i don't care that someone who really isn't very knowledgeable doesn't want to listen and learn.

so it's cool.

 

[Anguille]

No...she's talking about taking marriage, which has always been the province of the state, and handing it over to the church because THEY want the word.

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

Regardless of who first used the word marriage, the state or the church, there's no good reason why the state should change it's vocabulary to suit a bunch of people who are opposed to gay marriage. If some churches are offended that the state calls all marriages a marriage, let those churches make up another word all their own for what they call marriage.

 

[dilloduck]

No...she's talking about taking marriage, which has always been the province of the state, and handing it over to the church because THEY want the word.

I'm pretty sure marriage predates the state so I don't know what that's about. And I'm talking about marriage having no legal status whatsoever and civil unions being the standard legal way for couples to join and anyone that wants to do it can. If something about this is some how unfair to gays or anyone else I sure don't see it.

Regardless of who first used the word marriage, the state or the church, there's no good reason why the state should change it's vocabulary to suit a bunch of people who are opposed to gay marriage. If some churches are offended that the state calls all marriages a marriage, let those churches make up another word all their own for what they call marriage.

nice spin