Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[jasonnfree]

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

Why are you? You're arguing for marriage on traditional grounds and traditional definitions. Nothing is more traditional in the realm of marriage than polygamy. It predates monogamy as the traditional form of what constituted marriage among humans.

Good point. It's none of my business who marries who or how many . I'm sure many gays are in higher tax brackets and pay a lot of taxes. That should count for something also.

 

[jasonnfree]

Religion has nothing to do with it. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

Equal rights are accorded to corporations who have recently been judged persons with the same rights as people. And they do mergers all the time which are in reality marriages, yet I don't hear any squawking from "conservatives" about something as untraditional as this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

That's what I'm waiting for too.

Everyone predicting dire consequences should gay marriage pass has yet to specify what those consequences would be, including the lawyers arguing against gay marriage in the Supreme Court on Monday!! WTF?? They couldn't come up with a single thing.

The Prop 8 lawyer couldn't come up with any bad consequence as a result of legalizing gay marriage;

he resorted to arguing that because we could assume that there would inevitably be consequences, we could also assume that some of the consequences would be bad.

It sounded like someone had written a comedic parody of the whole thing.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

'

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

If you can draw the line at one man one woman, there's no reason you can't draw the line at one person one person.

Both cases are monogamy, and thus both cases effectively discriminate against polygamy. Any argument the polygamists think they can make against hetero and gay marriage they can make against hetero/opposite sex only marriage.

you've just defeated your own argument....

if you can 'draw the line' regarding numbers then we can also 'draw the line' at gender....

 

[peach174]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

 

[legaleagle_45]

[
And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Anyone who objects to that should be horsewhipped.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me

 

[American76Pride]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is ******* happy!

 

[Seawytch]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

Funny, I don't see anything about doing away with the 1st Amendment (which covers both) in any of the Prop 8 or DOMA briefs.

Marriage has been legal in MA over a decade. Has that happened?

 

[Seawytch]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is ******* happy!

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

 

[bodecea]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

I understand that pastors, priests and rabbis are already being arrested for hate crime speeches against interracial marriage, against divorced remarriage and against interfaith marriages. And there are tons...simply tons of lawsuits against churches for refusing to marry interracial, interfaith, and previously divorced couples.

No....wait.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

So the bad consequences are that people who break the law will be arrested?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

'

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

If you can draw the line at one man one woman, there's no reason you can't draw the line at one person one person.

Both cases are monogamy, and thus both cases effectively discriminate against polygamy. Any argument the polygamists think they can make against hetero and gay marriage they can make against hetero/opposite sex only marriage.

you've just defeated your own argument....

if you can 'draw the line' regarding numbers then we can also 'draw the line' at gender....

Last time I looked gender discrimination was unconstitutional.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Last time I looked gender discrimination was unconstitutional.

Gender discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny, but not strict scrutiny. Thus, it is constitutional to have seperate public restrooms for men and women, but not seperate restrooms for different races... as discrimination based upon race is subject to strict scrutiny.

Sexual preference has not been elevated to heightened scrutiny by SCOTUS (at least officially).... Some federal courts of appeal have done so... specifically the 9th and perhaps some others.

 

[legaleagle_45]

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

So the bad consequences are that people who break the law will be arrested?

lol

A law which made those actions illegal would itself be unconstitutional.

 

[American76Pride]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is ******* happy!

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is ******* happy!

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

 

[American76Pride]

Was everyone happy with separate drinking fountains? It was the same water after all.

Not really, but that was a problem because of peoples' misunderstanding of race, and segregation was based upon persecution of said "inferior" races. My idea doesn't persecute homosexuals but rather makes a compromise which gives both sides of the marriage debate the things they want. I'll go over how my method does that. Side one: Social conservatives say it's between a man and a woman, side two: Social liberals say it's between two people who love each other regardless of gender. In order to have a compromise in which both sides would be happy, it's better to have the term "marriage" be between a man and a woman and give homosexuals the same exact rights as a married couple would have but call it something else (i.e, a civil union.) I've met gays before, and they don't seem to be concerned with the term marriage but are rather concerned about the rights associated with marriage. You give them the same rights, I'm sure a majority of LGBT people won't mind if it's called a civil union or if it's called marriage.

Conservatives still get to keep the term marriage traditional, LGBT people get the same rights as married couples do. It doesn't persecute anyone in anyway based upon their sexual orientation, rather it doesn't change the definition of a word held sacred by many, and gives the homosexuals the rights they deserve. It's a win-win.

Except you still have the "separate but equal situation", which is not intended to provide equality. The intent of social authoritarians is to be able to hold "marriage" as in Civil Marriage (that which exists under the law) as a superior condition to Civil Unions.

Having returned back to the States in the early 90's I've watched the whole story unfold over the decades. In the late 90's and early 2000's the idea of Civil Unions was floated, but it was social authoritarians that slapped down the whole idea of Civil Unions. They felt they were operating from a position of strength and in no way wanted any recognition for same-sex couples. They shut down the idea of Civil Unions and in the 2000's even got many of the State Constitutional Amendment not only to block Same-sex Civil Marriage but any civil recognition of same-sex relationships. Similar to the one that was passed in Virginia that says...

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage"​

First social authoritarians lost in the courts, then they began to loose in the legislature and they also found the massive margins of victory in General Elections they witness in the early 2000's of 23-76% had slipped to where a change of 2.5% of the vote by 2008/2009 would have changed the outcome. Now last year Same-sex Civil Marriage won 4 times in general elections. When Civil Unions were passed in Washington State, social authoritarians were so upset with Civil Unions being separate but equal to Civil Marriage they got a referendum on the ballot to repeal the actions of the legislature (the referendum lost).

So now that social authoritarians are finally realizing the are in a position of weakness, Civil Unions they previously fought tooth and nail to prevent are not the acceptable compromise and it's the supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage that are emerging to stand in a position of strength. "Separate But Equal" is not a win-win compromise, it is a last ditch effort to throw up a bulwark to delay the inevitable.

A compromise that is really equal is one where neither side gets what they want and both give up something. The suggestion that Civil Marriage remain the exclusive territory of different-sex couples and Civil Unions be used for same-sex couples is not compromise. It's social authoritarians saying we win and things remain the same because we get to keep what we had.

So here is a real compromise, neither side keeps "Civil Marriage". "Civil Marriage" is stricken from the code (both federal and state) and replaced with "Civil Unions" which then applies equally to different-sex and same-sex coupes the same as "Civil Marriage" does not. If a couple wants a "marriage", then they go to a religious institution that is willing to perform one - and they get married. From a civil law standpoint Civil Unions applies equally, from a "marriage" standpoint - again it is applied equally by any religious organization that is willing to perform the ceremony.

Both side give up something, neither will be happy with the solution, but at the end of the day both sides are treated truly equally.


>>>>

Now that is convincing. I like that idea. Okay, I get you, and I think I'll follow your idea of the marriage question.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now that is convincing. I like that idea. Okay, I get you, and I think I'll follow your idea of the marriage question.

I like it because it pisses both side off.




>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

Here's my opinion on the subject:

Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman. We should stick with that definition, and instead give homosexuals the right to a civil union which comes with the same exact rights a married couple has. This will be a compromise on the gay marriage issue. It will give the homosexuals the rights they want, along with preserving the traditional definition of marriage, making the conservatives happy.

Everybody is ******* happy!

It'll never work. You know why?

Lutherans marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Episcopalians marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Methodists marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Presbyterians marry gay couples and they call it marriage.

Marriage isn't a ceremony OR a term reserved just for YOUR church or religion.

Forget it. Government performs civil union ceremonies and call it marriage. Religion performs religious ceremonies and call it marriage. Government grant equal benefits in both circumstances for heteros. Government will soon grant benefits to gay couples too. That's the way it works. Let's move on people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to **** they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

Arrest of pastors, priests and rabbis for hate crime speech.
Law Suites against the churches for refusing to marry gay couples.

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as ‘hate crime speech.’ See: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992).

And suits brought against churches, as with any other private organization, would clearly fail on First Amendment freedom of association grounds. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

Obviously there are no ‘terrible consequences’ associated with allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law.