My take on Gay Marriage.

[rateyes]

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. All "marriages" should be, in the sight of the government, "civil unions." The government should quit issuing "marriage licenses" and issue liceneses for "civil unions." Those licenses should not be limited to heterosexual couples.

If, after obtaining a civil union a couple wanted to have a "marriage ceremony" and call themselves married, then they should be allowed to do so, and call their civil union a marriage--gay or straight.

This keeps church and state separate, and treats everyone the same.

IOW, I'm against state-sanctioned "gay marriage" and "heterosexual marriage."

[Solon]

1. And what evidence do you have that marriage is only for the religious?

I find this argument to be a form of religious bigotry against all non-religious people.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. You can have a secular marriage

Have your friends over for your own secular ceremony. Have a respected elder perform your ceremony.

I used to agree with the OP, now I don't. I'm pissed off. Loving v Virginia is quite clear. As long as states sanction marriages they must do so with all people being equal. If states choose to abolish state marriage licenses entirely in order to comply with Loving v Virginia, that is their option.

[Solon]

3. Exactly, we have Civil Marriages, and have always had them...

and we should keep them and extend them to cover GLBT couples as well. It really is that simple, and I know for a fact that no state abolished Civil Marriage to comply with Loving v Virginia, so I doubt they will do so in the case of Same Sex Marriage either.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I've been wanting to ask a question.

And I'll ask you because I've noticed you are vocal on this topic without being divisive.

In my state, California, the prop 8 vote was tight and I think a significant number on the fence could have gone either way.

I think a significant number are upset with the redefining of the word, "marriage".

I do not think that many of those in favor of eight cared either way about insurance, hospital visits, or the other rights and responsibilities that go with marriage.

Now bear with me, this is a serious question based on the idea that many non-bigoted pro-8 people were defending the "word".

What if a state allowed for all the rights and responsibilities provided to heteros in marriage to gays and lesbians, and that the language of such legislation added the modifiers "same sex" to the word "marriage". Thus, there would be "marriages" and "same sex marriages" and, but for the modifier, there would be no difference in the eyes of the law.

Do you think that would constitute a reasonable compromise, or do you think that expanding the singular word "marriage" to be more inclusive is of paramount importance to the GLBT community?

The question is sincere and serious, please don't flame.

[Solon]

6. Well, I think of it practically, and your argument is similar to the "Make Civil Unions equal."...

argument. Basically the crux of the issue is that Same Sex Marriage, as a legally defined term, will most likely be struck down in the courts, because Heterosexuals cannot participate in them. This sounds odd, but this is part of the reason why we didn't legally call interracial marriages that in legal terms, the license still just said marriage at the top, regardless of the participants involved in that legal union.

You would create two parallel and exclusive institutions, oddly enough, both called Marriage, but the problem is that "normal" Marriage is already legal in other states of Same Sex Couples, what do they do when they move to places like California, get remarried as under the term "Same Sex Marriage"?

These type of arguments get really complicated, unnecessarily so, it would make it so difficult for any couple to even know which type of Marriage or Civil Union to get into, if they want the least amount of hassle.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Are partners is same sex marraiges in those states where legal allowed to...

...file jointly on federal returns?

I'm just curious, it's not like the question and answer will lead to a solution, but if they are able to it bodes well for eventual state by state admission of such unions, or at least recognition of the unions formed in other states, without federal interference.

I'm optimistic that it will work out over time, not soon enough really but eventually.

Thanks for the input.

[Solon]

9. No, because of DOMA...

Once that's overturned, then they will be able to file jointly, as far as I'm aware of.

[Fearless]

16. In reality...

"Civil Union" may be an acceptable stepping stone to marriage... like training wheels if you will...

But separate but equal is still inherently unequal.

[rateyes]

18. I certainly won't flame you. For the record,

I am straight. My brother is gay. The position I stated is also my brother's position. All I care about is that people are treated equally. I really don't think my idea would catch on in the courts---but, it might some day.

As far as your idea is concerned, it sounds reasonable to me. Personally speaking, I don't like government and the church mixed up together in anything, including marriage. But, only clergy and certain civil officials now are allowed to sign marriage licenses making a marriage legal.

IMO, that should change. With the purchase of a civil union license, a couple should be considered joined or united, legally speaking. Whatever ceremony, civil or religious or secular, a couple chooses to go through to call their union a marriage is OK by me.

But, if your idea gets us to equal treatment and both groups have "marriages" its OK with me.

[TommyO]

23. By using the term "redefining marriage"

you're buying in the right-wing talking points. Nobody is redefining marriage, except for those who are pushing hateful anti-gay marriage amendments.

[Fearless]

14. Of course it is...

Marriage predates ALL major religions and grew up independent of religion in general. There was marriage in the Americas pre-colonialism, in East Asia, in Aboriginal society, EVERYWHERE... completely devoid of Christianity or Judaism or any specific religion at all.

[gollygee]

4. I've heard this somewhere before . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4695386&mesg_id=4695386

And a zillion other times.

We have like 8 threads on DU. The rest are just duplicates and slightly differently phrased versions of the first 8.

Hey, I have an idea! How about if we raise the gas tax by $1 a gallon?

[Lifetimedem]

7. I agree 100%

[peace13]

10. Incoming!

I have been saying all along that unions for all is the only way to go. Go figure. If we can run around the wall of fire or run through the wall of fire and accomplish A, why would we ever run through the fire?. Some Christian folks are crazy about 'gay marriage' and that will never end. Let's get rights for all and get on with it. There is so much work to be done!

[Sanctified]

11. Whats the Difference between a Marriage and a Union? n/t

[Orrex]

12. Unions are routinely squashed by Republicans

But Marriage is Godly and Righteous, no matter what.


Hardy har har...

[noamnety]

13. I never heard a single person say they supported civil unions but not marriages

until gay marriage became a real possibility. Funny, eh?

[rateyes]

19. I hear you. nt

[mondo joe]

15. What are you going to do about it?

[rateyes]

20. Ever heard of Gay-Straight Alliance?

That's what I'm doing about it.

[Fearless]

17. I am SOOO sick of this damn argument...

"We also have to understand that this issue is not a reason to argue whether or not marriage should exist in government at all. But, on this issue, I'd like to put the whole religion/government argument to rest. It is in some opinion that marriage is a religious institution and because they don't like religious institutions (as I don't) they believe that marriage should not exist in government because it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

The fact of the matter is that marriage existed well before Christianity, which is the religious affiliation with which most people have a problem with. Marriage existed in Ancient Rome and Greece, hundreds of years before the Christian Church's inception. Likewise, marriage existed in places other than the later Christian Europe. It existed in East Asia, a place with no connection to Christianity. It existed in the Americas, a place with no connection to any of the modern big religions. It crosses all religious barriers because it predates all of them. Why? Because people like to feel loved and they like the security of knowing that they will continue to be loved.

So, to say that marriage should be done away with is a capitulation of a natural human desire to the powers that be in the religious communities of the world. Sounds a lot like the idea of getting rid of same-sex marriage rights in the first place. Hmm... How ironic."

[rateyes]

21. Number one, we have civil marriages today. Number two,

I don't give a damn if the person performing the marriage ceremony is Santa Claus. It's all semantics. If the union is the same, legally speaking, then marriage becomes, not a religious thing, but an affair of the heart.

[peace13]

24. I thought the civil marriages didn't have the same intrinsic rights.

Did I miss something?

[Fearless]

26. My point is...

That I refuse to give religious types the word even. They get nothing. Marriage was secular first. None of this civil union crap. Give an inch, give a mile. If there's no difference between "civil union" and marriage then why are we getting rid of it in the first place? It's just not up to us to change our beliefs as a society because some crackpot religion is now claiming rights over our institution.

[rateyes]

27. And, it's a "no compromise" attitude that ends up

getting you nothing.

[Fearless]

28. Equality is not a compromise I'm willing to make.

[rateyes]

30. What is unequal about everyone having civil unions,

and the right to call that union a marriage? Can't you see that, in my solution, those who are "legally married" aren't married in the eyes of the state? That means people would actually be giving ground on both sides, and everyone is treated the same, and everyone can call their "legal union" anything they want.

Why do you insist on the state having to recognize a same-sex union as a "marriage" if they don't recognize a hetero union as a marriage?

Cheese on a cracker.

[Fearless]

31. The difference is that we have to change ourselves because of them.

[rateyes]

32. Who is "we" and "them?" Both are doing some "changing."

[Fearless]

33. If we (Americans) decide to call marriage a "civil union"

Then in effect we (the GLBTQ community) have given a step on equality. Why? Because if they (fundie bigots) did not have a problem with us being "married" this wouldn't be a debate at all. Marriage predates religion and I don't believe that because a bunch of people (fundie bigots) say I'm not equal that I should have to call marriage something else. The argument from the non-bigot community (ie, you I suppose) that support civil unions over marriage I am led to believe is because you/they believe that marriage should be left to religion and civil unions should be the word for civil marriages (which is technically what I believe it's already called). Likewise, I counter that religion should not have an impact on marriage, which predates it. I don't want to give them it. It's a step towards appeasing their rampant bigotry. A small step granted, but I believe a step away from equality. Am I so jaded as to not even accept that? Probably.

Peace,
NTF

[rateyes]

34. I am a church-state separationist...

so I don't want the state sanctioning or recognizing "religious marriage" as "legal marriage." Most, I think, in the gay community insist on their religious marriages being recognized by the state as legal marriages. I understand that, and agree with it---if the state is going to do it for one group of people, they should do it for all group of people. However, that still ends up with the state recognizing religious marriage as legal marriage.

As far as the state is concerned, marriage should be nothing more than a legal contract between two people, in my opinion. I also fail to understand how people who are "married" in the eyes of the law giving up that designation is a form of bigotry. That gesture, to me, would be a non-bigoted one. It would free everyone to have whatever kind of "union" they desire.

If everyone is treated equally by law--and their unions called the same thing in the eyes of the law, with all the rights accorded to the GLBT community as is the straight community---thus giving all people the freedom to be "married" by a minister, a judge, an accountant, a plumber or themselves, or not getting "married" at all...then there should be no problem.

It seems to me that you insist on those who view "marriage" as a sacrament of the church (i.e. the Roman Catholics, et al) extend that "sacrament" to same-sex couples, and won't budge on that. Therefore,when it comes to secular law, because of that insistence on your part, you can bet that the gay community will NEVER gain equality when it comes to "marriage."

[TommyO]

22. Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriage

There is no requirement in civil marriage law that a couple participate in any religious ceremony at all.

[rateyes]

25. Yes, I know.

[timtom]

29. I agree

And almost posted something similar on another thread.