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

[Syriusly]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

why do you pretend that a civil union could not have the same legal implications.

It could. And then what, you make it illegal for two people to call themselves married? This is where the your argument fell apart last time. People can call their arrangement anything they please. You could call your relationship with your dog marriage, if you wanted to do so.

What does it matter if they are not considered married but in a civil union instead. The fight was about the rights, not the name. When the civil union was brought up that would bring all of the same benefits, it suddenly was not about the benefits but instead about the name.
This just tells me something.

Once again- this is just revisionist history.

There was never a civil union that had all of the same benefits.

What gay couples fought for was their right to marriage- a right they could pursue in the courts- no one has a right to civil unions- and the same people who wanted to deny marriage to gays, wanted to deny them civil unions.

It was always about equal rights- not about 'names'.

 

[Syriusly]

Just because the homonazis claim it's a non issue doesn't make it one.

This continues to be an issue because people will continue to assert that the scotus leveled a bad law on us.

And we are committed to fighting bad laws.

So now you Nazi's are 'fighting bad laws'?

 

[Syriusly]

here

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- marriage is indeed a right.


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

Although Lovinga rose 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,"


InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

Just because the homonazis claim it's a non issue doesn't make it one.

This continues to be an issue because people will continue to assert that the scotus leveled a bad law on us.

And we are committed to fighting bad laws.

What law do you speak of?

Any law that she and her fellow Nazi's don't like.

Probably has to do with homosexuals or jews.

 

[Seawytch]

here

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

Actual Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

here

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

Actual Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

Do you mean like the Supreme Court decision against multible wives?
and the Supreme court cases did not say marriage was a right. they had to twist the 14th to make it seem like a right.

 

[PratchettFan]

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

here

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Sigh- I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

Americans do not have a right to 'civil unions'- we have a right to marriage.

Civil Unions were never the legal equivalent to marriage. There always existed laws and situations which made civil unions not the same.

Gay couples who wanted legal unions could go to the courts and ask for their right to marriage be protected. There was no right to go to court and ask for civil unions be the same as marriage.

This is not complicated- rather than 'separate and unequal'- we now have one legal union- marriage.

Simple

Not complicated.

Not any more.

Here is where your argument breaks down. Marriage is not now or has it ever been a right.
the supreme court only ruled that a same sex marriage performed in one state, must be recognized in another.
Marriage has never been a right, not for straight couples and not for gay couples.

Actual Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

Do you mean like the Supreme Court decision against multible wives?
and the Supreme court cases did not say marriage was a right. they had to twist the 14th to make it seem like a right.

Supreme Court- marriage is a right- over and over and over



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

Although Lovinga rose 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,"


InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Utter nonsense. There is not a law regarding marriage in the entire country which requires a church.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

So no one was forcing churches to marry anyone before gay marriages- why do you think 'equality' means that suddenly churches are forced to marry anyone?

 

[bendog]

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

No priest, pastor, rabbi, whatever is forced to officiate at a wedding.

I will say I'm a bit non-plussed that the Episcopalians are looking at a gender neutral one rite for all "marriage" thingee. Of course I'm still annoyed they changed the prayer book back in the 70s.

 

[Bombur]

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

No priest, pastor, rabbi, whatever is forced to officiate at a wedding.

I will say I'm a bit non-plussed that the Episcopalians are looking at a gender neutral one rite for all "marriage" thingee. Of course I'm still annoyed they changed the prayer book back in the 70s.

There is already gender neutral language for everything in the Episcopal church.

 

[bendog]

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

No priest, pastor, rabbi, whatever is forced to officiate at a wedding.

I will say I'm a bit non-plussed that the Episcopalians are looking at a gender neutral one rite for all "marriage" thingee. Of course I'm still annoyed they changed the prayer book back in the 70s.

There is already gender neutral language for everything in the Episcopal church.

Probably so, but marriage has been man/woman for .... roughly 500 years.

 

[PratchettFan]

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

No priest, pastor, rabbi, whatever is forced to officiate at a wedding.

I will say I'm a bit non-plussed that the Episcopalians are looking at a gender neutral one rite for all "marriage" thingee. Of course I'm still annoyed they changed the prayer book back in the 70s.

There is already gender neutral language for everything in the Episcopal church.

Probably so, but marriage has been man/woman for .... roughly 500 years.

Then we go back to our roots. Give me that old time religion.

 

[bendog]

Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

My wife was willing to concede "love", left "honor" to future performance on my behalf and was very clear on where I could stick "obey".

 

[Bombur]

Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.