View Poll Results: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    17 16.19%
  • No, they are not, because:

    55 52.38%
  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    25 23.81%
  • Other (Please Explain)

    8 7.62%
Page 10 of 83 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 830

Thread: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

  1. #91
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Yay, my first poll is so popular!



    Any-who, I guess I'll weigh in.

    I can see why the Civil Union compromise is sought after in the SSM debate. It satisfies two main points. Gay couples are given the federal benefits and legal recognition as marriage, but the actual term is reserved for the union between one man and one women.

    However, this fails due to one simple fact: Having two federally recognized institutions to serve the exact same purpose is perpetrating a separate but equal mindset. Brown vs Board of Education revealed that separate but equal is unconstitutional.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  2. #92
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    First off, I'll say that I could care less if the Fed Govt passes pro-LGBT legislation regarding marriage. Does not affect me one way or the other. I will not campaign for it but I refuse to campaign against it as well. I have a question, however: If passing legislation for SSM rights is the "RIGHT" thing to do.............why is it that so many political leaders at the Federal level (even those on the Left) seem to "shy away" from openly defending it? We have one of the more Liberal Presidents and Supreme Courts in recent history. We've also experienced a Democratic Congress with a super majority within the past five years. We've had arguably the most Left-leaning Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders ever...........and yet, we've failed to push SSM legislation through with any real degree of success? Why is this? Why have our political leaders resorted to nothing more effective than ballot initiatives at the state level where most are doomed to fail?

    While it's all too easy for the pro-SSM crowd to pass blame directly upon the shoulders of organized churches and on the "religious right" I will propose another theory. The Democratic Party and the political "Left" in general has failed their own base of support. Why?..........Well, for the sake of political expediency of course! Politicians (both Left and Right) are primarily concerned with TWO THINGS only................gaining and maintainting political power. Smart politicians realize that the majority of American voters are still opposed to the Fed Govt. legislating morality inside marriages and bedrooms. Smart politicians know that to take strong stances on such divisive issues is a great way to commit political suicide.

    So, my point, in reference to a few earlier posts, is this: While relying on the Fed Govt to "protect" the institution of marriage seems a ridiculous proposition.....................the pro-SSM crowd relying on the Fed Govt to do what they believe is "right" and "humanistically good" is also just as silly a proposition. When are we going to wise up and stop relying on govt to "fix everything" from Capitol Hill or from the bench of the SCOTUS? When dealing with the Fed govt the policy of "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" is generally the safest approach.
    1. I agree that Democrat politicians never did enough in support of same-sex marriage. For the most part, they started "speaking out" when it because "popular" (for lack of a better word) to do so. This has always been one of my main criticisms of Obama. I always figured he supported, but that he was just too much of a politician (read: coward) to speak up until he felt it was politically safe to do so. I'm happy he finally came out in support of it, but I don't forget his previous official anti-SSM stance. The same goes for Bill Clinton and many other Democrat officials.

    2. I think that the Supreme Court needs to deal with SSM, primarily. As a result, I don't have much of a problem with politicians focusing on state rather than federal level legislation. I have, though, wondered why they haven't pushed for legalization of same-sex marriage through Congress directly. I'm sure it's politics as usual. It's only very recently that the majority of the United States supported SSM so they probably didn't feel "safe" pushing for such legislation.

    3. As far as relying on the federal government to "fix everything" - everything, in this case, meaning same-sex marriage, I don't see your point. This is a government issue. DOMA was created by the government so the government is the one who has to get rid of it in order for same-sex marriage to be legal. Even in the case of getting government out of marriage altogether, we'd have to go to government so that it could remove itself. In other words, it's not really an issue of going to the government to "fix everything," it's a matter of this issue being a government issue.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    439

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    We are and never will be a country of seperate but equal! We are all equal in America that is called freedom!

  4. #94
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    One of the common arugements I've seen from social conservatives is that the creation of a civil union should answer the questions regarding gay marriage.

    Typically, the general idea is this:

    • The civil union will contain the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage
    • The term 'marriage' will only be recognized as between one man and one woman


    So, dear reader, my question to you is: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise with regards to the issue of Same-Sex marriage?

    I'll try to have the answers as applicable as possible.
    no because currently no civil union or domestic partnership is equal to marriage, you are granted approx 1400 rights/benefits by marriage and some of them cant be granted any other way. Also civil unions / domestic partnerships have already been defeated in areas marriage as not, property rights, wills, inheritance, etc

    "IF" some how they were made equal they would still be a direct slap in the face and a embarrassment, equal was but separate was tried once it failed.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #95
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Civil unions should be the legal norm for both types of relationships. Marriage should only have religious affiliation.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  6. #96
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

    SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

    no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #97
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,299

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Lump them together, marriage and civil union under "Legally Binding Contract." You only have to be divorced once to understand that marriage is a legally binding contract and the word marriage conceals that fact. If you want Church approval, ask the Church not the voter. In truth, it is all a matter of law and let's keep it in that Court.

  8. #98
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 11:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    I'm against limiting reform to civil unions for several but one most important reason. Marriage, as many would say, is a sacred institution, established by religion, that is self-defined as a union between one man and one woman. (Except the widespread practice of polygamy among world religions and through history.) If marriage is to be defined by religion, it has no place in political discourse; it is banned from government policy. Government is not to pass any law respecting religion. But since the institution of marriage is now entrenched as a legal entity, a function of the government, it is utterly divorced from religion; religion cannot have any authority or influence on it. Therefore, barring non-religious objections to it, legalization is the only acceptable course. The only way to challenge it is to challenge separation of church and state, and thus the constitution.

  9. #99
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Civil unions are a great idea, if they are for all consenting adults Keeping the term marriage is less optimal, but still reasonable if it also offered to everyone. Anything else is a violation of equal protection under the law. People whining about tradition are utter hypocrites given the current legal status of marriage with regards to gender equality and divorce compared to the past, but that misses the larger point: tradition is not an excuse to violate equal protection.

  10. #100
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    re: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I don't think the gov't should be involved in any way, shape, or form. The only thing the gov't should be involved in is a contract that is voluntarily entered into by any two adults, regardless of sex. This would be used to settle child custody disputes, property disputes, and settle the tax filing issue that is always brought up. The old Justice of the Peace marriages need to go away. Marriage should be conducted by churches and private entities, not by the gov't.
    What I'm going to need explained to me in the slowest, most patient way possible, is what government having to do with marriage is a problem. Pretend I'm super stupid here. And if you don't have to pretend, all the better!

Page 10 of 83 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •