I have the solution! (GLBT Marriage)

[Yes We Did]

So, I posted a thread last night essentially saying why don't the Dems, or some retiring dem, slip gay marriage into some random bill; like they did with net neutrality. The pukes did it with a bunch of really bad stuff, why couldn't we do it with some really good stuff?

One problem. The federal government doesn't actually recognize marriage; it's a state by state thing.

So, here's my solution.

That there needs to be some constitutional amendment where it is declared that all citizens who are "married"... those relationships are now recognized by the federal government as civil unions. Because there is SUPPOSED to be separation of church and state, if you want to get "married" you MUST to do it at a church or some sort of place of worship; however, any two consenting adults may go down to ANY city hall and receive a civil union.

Obviously, there are certain stipulations to "any two consenting adults" but it has nothing to do with sexuality... More like "brother and sister" need not apply.

Yes, I know my explanation isn't exactly legalese, but the gist of it is this.

The federal government would put it in the books that it "Officially" does NOT recognize marriage; only the legal agreement of a Civil Union; thus creating equality. Straight couples who go to city hall for their civil unions are treated the exact same way as gay couples. And of course, "city hall" cannot turn away GLBT couples.

This way, if you want to have a ceremony... have it. The government doesn't look at it any different. Gay or straight; all they see is the civil union. And there are plenty of religious institutions willing to break with the rampant bigotry of organized religion... Thus solving the problem and declaring forever that January 16 national Demdog78 appreciation day...

You may eat cake and ice cream now. :party:

[cliffordu]

1. Well....

:popcorn:

[Yes We Did]

2. Hey! Put that popcorn away!

I didn't step on any toes with this one.

[cliffordu]

4. I'm thinking someone HAS to throw a fit. This is DU:

Home of the Annoyed.


I hope you're wearing a cup.

:hi:

[Yes We Did]

7. Nope... not this time.

I have a winner here.

[cliffordu]

8. After re-reading, I think you might very well have it.

I'd like to see everyone on the same footing....

EVERYONE.

This is America, goddammit.

[Rainbowreflect]

13. I have always believed this is the way to go.

No legal "marriage" that is private in your choice of place of worship or in a park or jumping out of an airplane or what ever.
Legal is a civil union.

[yardwork]

3. Lots of people have suggested this, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

In the meantime, the U.S. government - on both the federal and state levels - recognizes marriage is a legal contract and uses the word "marriage" on its licenses. But only for straight people in most states and at the federal level.

[Yes We Did]

6. That's why you combine this thread with my other thread.

Sneak that shit in! This way there is a federal mandate for all 50 states.

Come on Dennis!

[Creideiki]

5. I'd actually be okay with this

I already can get married, in the religious sense. I've got several friends that are clergy that would like nothing more than to marry me off (once I find a guy, anyway). But the state won't recognize that union.

[SidneyCarton]

9. I have suggested much the same thing, except I didn't mention the Amendment

The problem with a constitutional amendment is the difficulty of getting one passed on the federal level. It has to pass both houses of Congress by 2/3 and then be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Considering the current atmosphere (with CA having passed prop 8 and numerous states have outright bans on Same-Sex marriage) such a measure would probably be seen as an attempt to destroy marriage on the Federal level by the fundies. Nevertheless I think it's a good idea, and the best hope for a compromise solution, but I just have no hope in a compromise solution on this subject.

But thanks for the cake.

[Yes We Did]

10. You can't sneak it in?

Like bush did with all that shit?

[SidneyCarton]

11. Not a constitutional amendment.

First off, the bill would have to pass by 2/3 majority, but then the amendment has to be submitted to all 50 state legislatures for ratification 3/4 of those state legislatures have to approve it as well or there is no amendment (That's something like 37-38 states) While you might sneak it through Congress (Though the constitutionality of such an action would probably be in question) the possibility of getting the bill passed by supermajority is not high. And then, you couldn't sneak it past the states, as it has to be specifically submitted to them. There are amendments that have sat waiting for ratification by the states since the Adams Administration, John Adams, not his son John Quincy.

[Yes We Did]

12. @#&!!!

Fucking bullshit! What about an executive order? There has to be something... All the shit they pulled over the last 8 years. There has to be a way.

[SidneyCarton]

15. I actually don't know much about the scope and power of Executive Orders...

But as marriage law has been a prerogative of the states, there are no simple solutions.

Sorry, I wish there were.

[Yes We Did]

19. But that's because it's called marriage.

And since they want to play separate but equal... doesn't that leave the door open? Just tack it on, like the patriot act.

"We now have civil unions for any couple who wants one..."
"No state entity may intervene..."

Maybe?

[SidneyCarton]

20. Offering Civil Unions to all, maybe...

Mandating Civil Unions for all, (replacing the terminology of Marriage with that of civil unions) probably not. I argued that Marriage could become a non-binding private institution (not solely religious, but a matter between the contracting parties alone) while Civil Unions would now be the only institution recognized by the government. It was pointed out to me that such a compromise would be viewed by the fundies as the virtual destruction of marriage as much as legalization would be. Hence the terminology probably cannot be replaced without causing an uproar.

That said, if you are proposing the opening of civil unions for all, that may be legally possible, but I'm not sure it would have any positive effects in the short-term.

[Deja Q]

14. Nice post, Elton John.

:)

Actually, it's a nice idea. Let's see who bickers the most about it, for the m-word means more to them than the proclaimed benefits within.

[Yes We Did]

18. Huh?

Yes, I am aware of that, but I have also "heard marriage for all or marriage for none" (paraphrasing)
I just thought this would be a possible solution. I mean, yeah... it's much more than just the word... But if the government only legally recognizes "civil unions" then isn't that the same thing?

There are churches that will "marry" gay couples. So, you can still go that route, and legally it won't be any different.

Bigots are bigots, and you aren't going to change all their minds. So, if you can't change their minds, and they are going to hate you regardless, why not... what's wrong with doing the one thing that bothers them the most?

I don't know... probably just wishful thinking. But it's nice to think about.

[Creideiki]

21. I can already get "M"-ed

What I can't get is the government to recognize my "M".

What won't work is attempting both civil union and marriage recognition. We watched that attempted before, and it doesn't work out to equal.

There does also have to be gender identity inclusive ENDA. Otherwise, it will be too easy for the civil union to mean nothing.

[cate94]

16. You realize

that by changing all marriages to civil unions you have effectively played into the hand of the religious right who say the GLBT community is out to destroy marriage.

You probably already realize that the same churches who oppose gay marriage oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Mormons actually put it into memo form in 1997. Why? Mormon and Catholic hierarchies both reject anything that can be viewed as normalizing gay relationships. They really don't care what you call it. These religions already know that they can't be forced to perform marriages they don't condone. What is their problem? They hate gays. They don't even want gay people to be protected from hate crimes for gd's sake, why do you suppose you can get them to accept civil unions?

[Yes We Did]

17. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

I don't particularly give a shit what they think.

I just figure if the government recognized them all as civil unions, since there is SUPPOSED to be separation of church and state... well... you read my post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It would be easier and fairer to say everyone can get married

If you're willing to say "fuck 'em", then you may as well do it by giving everyone what they want for their own personal lives (and just partially piss off the bigots who want to restrict others' rights) , rather than pissing off nearly everyone, except those for whom it's just a question of a legal definition, rather than what we all mean by marriage.

[yardwork]

25. The one good thing about all this strangled logic is that it makes the obvious solution look easy.

Instead of doing a zillion difficult things, why not do just one difficult thing - extend the equal rights protections in the Constitution to gay people.

[cate94]

30. I read your post

and I understand there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Of course, for GLBT's that isn't working out that well.

Marriage, as recognized by the state is just a legal contract. Nothing sacred about it to the government. It is a civil union by a different name. There seems to be an underlying assumption that if you call marriage by a different word, church oppostion will just go away. It won't.

I only give a shit what "they" think because their ideology stands in the way of my legal rights.
My partner of 16 years and I would like to make it legal. The sacred part, we already have....

[Evoman]

22. I have a better solution....let gay people get fucking married and recognize it everywhere.

[FreeState]

27. 100% agreement here n/t

[gollygee]

23. How many times is this?

The same suggestion over and over again doesn't suddenly become a good suggestion the 200,000th time mentioned.

[FreeState]

26. Amen - doing away with an existing system of law so GLBT people fit in is offensive IMO n/t

[LostinVA]

28. Impractical and offensive

All of the laws are written for civil marriage -- Federal, state, local. It is impossible to rewrite these laws. It won't happen, nor will straight people GIVE SOMETHING UP, and I agree with that. They shouldn't have to, and gay people shouldn't have to have an existing legal institution twisted into something. It is easier AND less offensive to just open the existing legal construct to all American citizens.

[AntiFascist]

29. I think the Religious Right (and moderate) would have a field day....

in that you have successfully destroyed marriage once and for all. Not that their point of view deserves defending, just saying.

[TheKentuckian]

31. If such an Amendment could be passed we'd not be having this debate at all

because that would mean that gay marriage was nearly as widely accepted as the ability to buy Coca-Cola at 7/11.

The remedy will have to come from the bench (fat chance with the way the courts are stacked right now) or by pushing through some pretty tough legislation like we did in the 60's and hope the backlash isn't as harsh this time because I'd think most would agree that letting the Republicans off the mat and back in the drivers seat is a generally bad idea, particularly at this stage in history. This concern makes me an incrementalist to some degree as that is the only working civil rights model in this country, anyway.

This is an issue where threading the needle and splitting the opposition is quite probably required. Possibly, even to pass the required laws. This sure as hell isn't a "because Obama say" issue. The President doesn't have enough power and unfortunately in this case we don't have a lockstep Congress that will just say ok like the Republicans had with Bush. Congress critters in conservative districts and states will fall off the wagon and few if any Republicans will come over.

This isn't impossible but I think its a hell of a tougher nut to crack than many will even consider. Things would be much better if we'd been able to prevent the stacking of the courts that would take this issue out of the hands of a fickle majority but for a variety of reasons we've had 24/40 years of conservative appointments that would possibly even be receptive to rolling back previous civil rights advancements, if they could make it fly.

As it stands now the options appear to be change public opinion or re-stack the courts, either solution isn't going to be sudden unless MAYBE some of the conservatives on the SC retire and the right appeal can get there.
I don't see anything resembling a sure fire short term fix for gay marriage. Political will from leadership isn't likely enough to make it happen, you have to have votes.