Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it.”

In which case your state representative is as ignorant as you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The social right's childish response to marriage equality of taking the marriage ball and going home with it is both ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[Seawytch]

Boss said:

“Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it.”

In which case your state representative is as ignorant as you.

More likely his rep (who is probably civilly married himself) was blowing him off.

 

[MaryL]

Gays always had rights same as ANYONE. The SAME rights. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution. Its always been: We, the People. Not "We, the sexually different but equal PEOPLE". Nope. Homosexuality has never been PROVEN to be equitable to Heterosexuality. It's kind of vague, the medical community won't commit to Homosexuality as a valid sexual identity or as a mental or physical dysfunction NOW. Realy? Why is that? Gays have deep pockets, not much else.

 

[Boss]

So.... What we see, once again, is a reasonable proposal to resolve the problem with all sides ostensibly getting the thing they want most...and one after another, lefties sound off on how I am a bigoted homophobic moron rightie. No explanation, no justification, just outright refusal to even try to be objective or open minded.

It should be clear to everyone, this issue is not about the problem being resolved. It should be obvious the left would rather keep the issue alive so they can continue to bash and trash conservatives, denigrate the religious, and give the illusion they are fighting for a cause.

Someone says, "Oh, but they tried 'domestic partnerships' and conservatives fought that!" No they didn't try what I proposed. McCain once suggested civil unions for gay couples as a 'separate but equal' compromise and it was not popular on either side because it wasn't a solution. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays always had rights same as ANYONE..

Really- how wrong can you be?

Up until the 1960's Gays were denied hiring at the State Department, and fired from the State Department- for being Gay.
Up until just a couple of years ago, Gays excluded from the Armed Forces.
And of course a gay couple until recently, could not get married like my wife and I are married.

And that doesn't even go into laws that specifically made sex illegal between homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays always had rights same as ANYONE. The SAME rights. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution. .

Marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Judicial review]

Lesibans smell bad. Damn womenists..

 

[Syriusly]

. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?

 

[Boss]

. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?

My solution:

At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.

At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.

From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.

As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.

Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.

 

[Seawytch]

. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?

My solution:

At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...862/reply?quote=10065091/reply?quote=10065091

At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.

From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.

As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.

Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.

And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.

Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying **** what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?

 

[toxicmedia]

. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?

My solution:

At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...862/reply?quote=10065091/reply?quote=10065091

At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.

From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.

As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.

Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.

And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.

Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying **** what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?

When you step back from the issue.....one might realize how insane the whole thing really is.

Guesses about the percentages of the population that are gay range from 2%-10%. The percentage of those who get married, if it were legal nationwide, should be the same as straights.

I don't know anybody who doesn't have strong opinions on this issue, but the people truly affected by it are probably less than 5% of the population.

The "traditional marriage" argument has de-evolved over the last 20 years. When religious opposition became a less potent argument, it pivoted to "protection of traditional marriage". That's a tough angle because traditional marriages are legally unaffected by gay marriages, so they're stuck defending a concept.

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.

 

[Boss]

And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.

Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying **** what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?

First of all, no it's not something that has been proposed or tried. States simply can't oppose what is done at the Federal level. They get two votes in the Senate, so I calculate 12 votes against. If they want to ban what the federal government defines as a couple or joint tax filers etc., the SCOTUS can remedy that.

Next, my proposal is not exclusive to "non familial" couples, you could get a CU with your sister, the government is not discerning the nature of the relationship between contracting parties. Obviously, they would have to be of legal age and consenting.

I've already told you I contacted my Congressmen and Representatives. For conservatives who oppose my idea I would argue, are you a hypocrite or do you want government out of our lives?

The onus is on US as a society to work together for a reasonable resolution to our problems. But in order to get to this reasonable solution, we first have to lay down the torches and pitchforks and stop "siding" against each other.

 

[Boss]

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.

You forgot my motivation for opposition. I don't believe government or courts should dictate what I call marriage or what anyone calls marriage. Also, because of Equal Protection, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow marriage to be sanctioned by government on the basis of sexuality. I believe it would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis, and the Constitution would support them.

 

[Syriusly]

. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.

So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?

My solution:

At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.

At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.

From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.

As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.

Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.

Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.

But.....almost everyone on the right and the left would oppose it. It is a solution that would have been what I preferred 10 years ago- but it is a solution that would have to pass Congress- and no Republican House would pass it.

If nothing else because they would be seen to be caving to the LGBT community- and while the GOP is moving more towards hoping no one asks them about marriage equality- they very much don't want to be seen as caving on the issue.

 

[Conservative65]

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

No one is doing that. Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage. The only claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights. You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.

The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.

 

[Syriusly]

And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.

Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying **** what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?

First of all, no it's not something that has been proposed or tried. States simply can't oppose what is done at the Federal level..

Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Federal government could eliminate Federal benefits to marriage, but couldn't actually eliminate marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

No one is doing that. Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage. The only claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights. You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.

The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.

The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.

 

[Boss]

Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.

But.....almost everyone on the right and the left would oppose it. It is a solution that would have been what I preferred 10 years ago- but it is a solution that would have to pass Congress- and no Republican House would pass it.

If nothing else because they would be seen to be caving to the LGBT community- and while the GOP is moving more towards hoping no one asks them about marriage equality- they very much don't want to be seen as caving on the issue.

What you are saying is, you agree with me but you think too many might be opposed.... so let's just keep pushing for something most people overwhelmingly oppose?

I actually don't see my solution as "caving" to anyone. In fact, one of the key principles of conservatism is smaller limited government. Getting government out of our lives. The Libertarian wing is all about individual liberty. The religious right simply wants to protect traditional marriage. My solution allows all of that and more.

Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.

But.....almost everyone on the right and the left would oppose it. It is a solution that would have been what I preferred 10 years ago- but it is a solution that would have to pass Congress- and no Republican House would pass it.

If nothing else because they would be seen to be caving to the LGBT community- and while the GOP is moving more towards hoping no one asks them about marriage equality- they very much don't want to be seen as caving on the issue.

What you are saying is, you agree with me but you think too many might be opposed.... so let's just keep pushing for something most people overwhelmingly oppose?/QUOTE]

Two things
a) I believe more people would oppose your idea than oppose same gender marriage- I doubt you would even get the majority of Libertarians- but they would be the majority of any support.
b) Most people don't overwhelmingly oppose same gender marriage-

Pew Poll from September:
(Reuters) - Support for gay marriage among Americans has dipped slightly below 50 percent, the Pew Research Center found in a survey released on Monday, even as bans on same-sex marriage have been ruled unconstitutional in a number of states this year.

The latest survey by Pew showed 49 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, down from 54 percent when the organization conducted a similar poll in February.

So at times this year- more Americans supported same sex marriage and now- most Americans don't.

Hardly a resounding consensus either way.