March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[martybegan]

Who's being cheated? They are being told that the business doesn't work that event.

They made no such promise, and you continue to lie.

Well, in the case of the Klein's, Mrs. Klein SPECIFICALLY offered to work that event.

Until her husband got involved, anyway.

The Women Who Challenged Sweet Cakes on the Cost of Their Battle

Aaron and Melissa Klein’s discrimination was particularly shocking to us because Rachel had previously worked with Melissa to arrange a wedding cake for her mother’s wedding. Melissa knew then that the bride’s daughter was in a same-sex relationship; in fact, when we got engaged a year later, it was Rachel’s mom who said, “I know just where we have to get the cake!” Plus our caterer and venue — both of whom welcomed our same-sex wedding — also recommended Sweet Cakes, so it seemed like a perfect match.

After enthusiastically discussing the cake with Melissa at a local wedding expo in January 2013, Rachel scheduled a cake-tasting appointment. When the day came, she and her mom went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa, excited to share the joy of planning another wedding cake together. But much to their surprise and Rachel’s humiliation, they were met at the bakery not by Melissa but by her husband, Aaron, who announced they would not serve us because we were a same-sex couple.

So what? Still not evidence of wife beating.

 

[martybegan]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

 

[Iceweasel]

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

 

[Dragonlady]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Actually, that's not true. This is a list of the various states that have voted in favour of same sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Dragonlady]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

 

[martybegan]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.
It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

You completely missed my point, no small surprise. You ASSUMED I have a religious point of view. Nothing I said had anything to do with religion.

So on one hand the gays have spousal rights that include insurance but that doesn't effect anyone else? I don't think you understand how insurance works.

But, I said the state should step out and let people make the contracts they want. If you decide to live with someone or three people you can give them control over you and your assets. There's no reason for government to meddle in people's personal affairs.

 

[Pop23]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

All of which could have been done without redefining marriage, but since Windsor made marriage no more than a financial tool, what right do we have to exclude any two or more adults from entering into it?

Makes no legal sense

 

[Dragonlady]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

All of which could have been done without redefining marriage, but since Windsor made marriage no more than a financial tool, what right do we have to exclude any two or more adults from entering into it?

Makes no legal sense

Marriage has always been about money. Providing protection for women against being abandoned with their children, and providing financial incentives for marriage and procreation through tax deductions. Civil marriage defines the rights and obligations of the couple in terms of law, financial support and taxes.

It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Pop23]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

All of which could have been done without redefining marriage, but since Windsor made marriage no more than a financial tool, what right do we have to exclude any two or more adults from entering into it?

Makes no legal sense

Marriage has always been about money. Providing protection for women against being abandoned with their children, and providing financial incentives for marriage and procreation through tax deductions. Civil marriage defines the rights and obligations of the couple in terms of law, financial support and taxes.

It has nothing to do with religion.

I never said it was about religion, but now we have a court ruling making it purely financial. So there can be no sound legal reason to limit this partnership in number or familial status as long as the participants are willing and of legal age and mental ability.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

 

[mdk]

 

[martybegan]

No Church Dogma (at least mainstream) supports racism. All of them say homosexual acts are sinful. Big difference.

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

And your bigotry and general awfulness continues to shine through with each post.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

 

[Dragonlady]

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

What happens when a same sex couple, who married in their home state, moves to a state which doesn't recognize or allow same sex marriages? Do they lose their rights as a married couple? How can the state recognize their union while denying other couples the right to marry?

This is why this isn't just a States' issue. States' right were a wonderful thing before we became a mobile society. Now consistency of rights across all states is essential.

 

[martybegan]

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

What happens when a same sex couple, who married in their home state, moves to a state which doesn't recognize or allow same sex marriages? Do they lose their rights as a married couple? How can the state recognize their union while denying other couples the right to marry?

This is why this isn't just a States' issue. States' right were a wonderful thing before we became a mobile society. Now consistency of rights across all states is essential.

Actually there is already a mechanism for this. To me full faith and credit requires States to recognize marriage licenses from other States even if they won't issue it themselves. Currently States have different age requirements, and restrictions on cousin-marriages, but they can't ignore a marriage that doesn't meet the requirements of their own State.

That's what Obergfell should have said, but the progressive idiots on the SC decided to legislate from the bench and lord over us proles.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

YOu know, the reason why there are NOrthern and Southern Baptist conventions is because they had a disagreement about slavery.

None of them say that TODAY. 100 years ago was a different story.

Yes, I know, it's awful when someone points out your fairy tales about a magic man in the sky hating all the people you hate doesn't actually exist.

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

Marriage is now simply a financial arrangement between adults. Windsor made it so. It should be treated the same as any other contract. With the same kind of exclusions.

Period

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

No one is looking for leverage angst those who "disagree with them" Disagree all you want. Refuse to call it marriage. No one cares. Just stay the hell out of the way and let people be who they are and live as they chose, and that includes having the same rights as everyone else.


I just explained quite clearly why the name is important. That you chose to gloss it over is not my problem. I also explained that there are a myriad of problems with civil unions while they solve nothing but you are ignoring that too. Here is more:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?
Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"
All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Why civil unions aren't enough: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

 

[martybegan]

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

The institution has suffered over the years with all the divorce in the first place. More and more choosing to not marry, no stigma anymore, even living together. The gays pushed it so now even heterosexuals living together are considered domestic partners. That wording was made law in this state before we even had gay marriage.

It just no longer makes any sense for the state to be involved. Legal contracts puts to rest all forms of "marriage" and we no longer need to have a debate.

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

No one is looking for leverage angst those who "disagree with them" Disagree all you want. Refuse to call it marriage. No one cares. Just stay the hell out of the way and let people be who they are and live as they chose, and that includes having the same rights as everyone else.


I just explained quite clearly why the name is important. That you chose to gloss it over is not my problem. I also explained that there are a myriad of problems with civil unions while they solve nothing but you are ignoring that too. Here is more:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?
Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"
All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Why civil unions aren't enough: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

So people can only express their views "out of the way" if you disagree with them. Gee, thanks.

All of this is an example of activists wanting acceptance, not tolerance, and using government to bully people into giving in.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays pushed for marriage to have access to family health care benefits, so that same sex partners have rights when their spouse is ill and unable to make decisions for themselves. Often families swoop in and throw the spouse out. Marriage means the spouse has the right to decide.

Marriage also gives tax benefits not available to single people.

In reality, gay marriage has no impact on straights at all. Those who choose to discriminate on the basis of religion should have to prove they don't serve other "sinners" than gays, and not serve those who are divorced or adulterous either. Remarriage is also forbidden by the Bible, as is adultery. When you stop serving those sinners, I'd be prepared to accept your religious argument.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or **** you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

No one is looking for leverage angst those who "disagree with them" Disagree all you want. Refuse to call it marriage. No one cares. Just stay the hell out of the way and let people be who they are and live as they chose, and that includes having the same rights as everyone else.


I just explained quite clearly why the name is important. That you chose to gloss it over is not my problem. I also explained that there are a myriad of problems with civil unions while they solve nothing but you are ignoring that too. Here is more:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?
Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"
All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Why civil unions aren't enough: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

So people can only express their views "out of the way" if you disagree with them. Gee, thanks.

All of this is an example of activists wanting acceptance, not tolerance, and using government to bully people into giving in.

Stop playing the perennial victim. It does not become you. You don't have to accept anything . Acceptance is something that goes on inside your own head. I'll settle for tolerance. You mind your business and I will mind mine. And no one is saying that you cant express your views. . That is just more absurd whining that you people are so good at

 

[Iceweasel]

That is just more absurd whining that you people are so good at

Who started the thread? LOL. You lying assholes ram your beliefs down people's throats then claim they are whining and intolerant if they object in any way.

The extreme dishonesty is the primary reason I oppose homophiles and their agenda. We need less of that and less government in our private lives. Make a contract and be tolerant of others who don't want to pay government to get involved.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is just more absurd whining that you people are so good at

Who started the thread? LOL. You lying assholes ram your beliefs down people's throats then claim they are whining and intolerant if they object in any way.

The extreme dishonesty is the primary reason I oppose homophiles and their agenda. We need less of that and less government in our private lives. Make a contract and be tolerant of others who don't want to pay government to get involved.