Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Syriusly]

Would straight people?

YES. The only legitimate government interest in this area is the welfare of children, who are almost always better off in a stable home with two biological parents. That is why there are tax deductions for dependents and joint tax returns when one parent is caring for them. It was originally made deliberately difficult to dissolve this arrangement, but no-fault divorce has greatly undermined this contractual relationship.

Easily dissolvable Civil Unions should be available to all couples who want to combine their resources and legal rights, but the aforementioned tax advantages should only be available to legally Married couples with children.

So no tax deductions for children- for when a single mom is raising her kids?

As if it wasn't hard enough to be a single parent raising kids- taking away the tax deductions that married couples get for their kids is just cold.

 

[rightwinger]

Ten years ago, gays may have settled for civil unions

But conservatives were on a roll. They were blocking same sex relationships around the country.....they insisted on blocking civil unions too

Gays fought back. They won over the hearts and minds of the country, they convinced the courts they were legally correct.

Now conservatives seem willing to offer civil unions after gays have already won the right to marry

 

[jwoodie]

I don't mind referring to gay couples as spouses, but "husbands" or "wives" makes those terms a joke.

 

[Syriusly]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't mind referring to gay couples as spouses, but "husbands" or "wives" makes those terms a joke.

Then don't call them that. No one is going to force you.

 

[Clementine]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

I think many were calling for marriage instead of civil unions because they knew it would anger religious people. Can you distinguish between the two terms? That is why I wonder why they didn't fight for civil unions instead of redefining marriage. There was a lot of bashing religious people over this. It doesn't matter what religious people thought of civil unions and the courts could have decided on that and ended up with the same result, without having to redefine anything.

It's about the term they chose to fight for. And, yes, plenty of atheists and religion bashers were heard from on this issue.

 

[Syriusly]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

I think many were calling for marriage instead of civil unions because they knew it would anger religious people. .

Who?

Again- I provided very specific examples of people actually fighting for their right to marriage.

So far all you have provided is your emotional response.

 

[Syriusly]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

Can you distinguish between the two terms? That is why I wonder why they didn't fight for civil unions instead of redefining marriage.

I will repost what I posted the first two times

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

 

[rightwinger]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

I think many were calling for marriage instead of civil unions because they knew it would anger religious people. Can you distinguish between the two terms? That is why I wonder why they didn't fight for civil unions instead of redefining marriage. There was a lot of bashing religious people over this. It doesn't matter what religious people thought of civil unions and the courts could have decided on that and ended up with the same result, without having to redefine anything.

It's about the term they chose to fight for. And, yes, plenty of atheists and religion bashers were heard from on this issue.

They didn't give a shit about what religious assholes thought. The religious assholes were going to hate them whether it was a marriage or civil union

 

[Syriusly]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

There was a lot of bashing religious people over this. It doesn't matter what religious people thought of civil unions and the courts could have decided on that and ended up with the same result, without having to redefine anything.

It's about the term they chose to fight for. And, yes, plenty of atheists and religion bashers were heard from on this issue.

And there was a lot of bashing of gays, by religious people over this. And religious people were at the forefront of the opposition to both marriage rights and the opposition to civil unions.

Homosexuals were not fighting for a term- they were fighting for their legal rights- rights that were opposed almost exclusively by religious people.

 

[MaryL]

Gays are all up about entitlements and marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about free love as far as a I found.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays are all up about entitlements and marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about free love as far as a I found.

Why do you want to deny Gays equal rights Mary? The homophobic bigots are all about denying Americans their rights.

Marriage is a right- which has been established for about 100 years- that you do not know that just is your ignorance.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

 

[Syriusly]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

Like I said- homophobic bigots like yourself just want to have all homosexuals murdered or imprisoned.

Just remember- Jesus loves you!/

 

[Ravi]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.

This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?

The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?


"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857

You don't think they should be allowed to call their unions marriage. Ironic.

Can they call their ceremonies weddings?

 

[Moonglow]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

Thanks fag...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is marriage a religious word?

 

[idb]

The long term goal of the homo agenda was to destroy the sanctity of marriage.

And turn it into a faggot freak show for perverts. ......

I'm guessing that you consider it a faggot freak show.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?"

Separate but equal is just as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

To attempt to relegate gay Americans to some sort of 'other marriage' would seek solely to make homosexuals different from everyone else, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end, which is the very essence of measures that violate the right of due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

There was really only one word at issue - equality. All of the arguments against equality all boiled down to this - "we don't like those people". The more that argument was made, the more it became clear there was no argument against equality. The ultimate result was inevitable.