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 29 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 830

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

  1. #281
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".

    It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".
    The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

    In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

    In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
    UMKC.edu ~ The Right to Marry

    Might want to look again.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #282
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is generally the way of it. Those who are more confident in their power tend to believe in pushing conflict to the bitter end, and those who are less so tend to believe in finding common ground.
    Civil; unions are not common ground. Civil unions are creating a separate set of rules so that a few people do not get offended at what others might do, and for zero gain. Civil unions as the OP expresses(which do not exist in this country currently) would be the same as marriage, so you are creating a whole new set of government regulations because you are afraid of having gays sign the same form as you but in every other way being the exact same. Why can't you take responsibility for your own emotional irrationality?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #283
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    Census is pretty self explanatory, legal reasons are things like custody of children.
    Child custody could easily be assumed shared custody, then have a court determine in the event of a break-up... pretty much like is done for unmarried couples who have kids together already in most places.

    Still not sure what you mean by census, but I presume you mean orderly records for archival and tracking purposes. I suppose we could add a question or two regarding household status (if there's not already one), but to me the census should be scaled way back to be a simple counting of people and not much else.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #284
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    easy because we are talking legal marriage and it has aboselutley positively nothing to do with religious marriage unless the people involved want it too. They are completely separate in reality neither needing eachother to exist.

    Rings, vows etc arent needed for marriages at all and if people choose to use them again, that is thier choice and effect religion zero. Religion isnt even a factor for the topic in reality.
    If you are going to eliminate all the traditional things that go along with a marriage, then what is the difference between that and a civil union?

    Another question, what exactly would be different about a civil union other than the name?

    To be honest, I really don't care if gay people get married, as long as they don't want to change things (or make certain customs no longer acceptable) for everyone else.

  5. #285
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,814

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    1.)If you are going to eliminate all the traditional things that go along with a marriage, then what is the difference between that and a civil union?

    Another question, what exactly would be different about a civil union other than the name?

    To be honest, I really don't care if gay people get married, as long as they don't want to change things (or make certain customs no longer acceptable) for everyone else.
    1.) nothing traditional is being illuminated though and two there are huge differences when it comes to legality and rights, secondly its still discrimination and a slap in the face.
    2.) well legally they are completely different, marriages grants you about 1400 rights/protections and privileges, civil unions dont even come close to that and they have already been proven in the court of law to not be as legally binding or strong. and again not to mention giving it a different name is silly, insulting and discrimination.
    3.) well its a good thing this isnt happening and that the super vast majority of gays dont want to do anything of the sort.

    equal but separate is discrimination and doesnt work thats already proven, did you see my example everybody runs from and nobody has the guts to even try to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    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.
    its complete nonsense to try and call it something else.
    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

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    [QUOTE=Objective-J;1061231399]
    1.) nothing traditional is being illuminated though and two there are huge differences when it comes to legality and rights, secondly its still discrimination and a slap in the face.
    In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.

    2.) well legally they are completely different, marriages grants you about 1400 rights/protections and privileges, civil unions dont even come close to that and they have already been proven in the court of law to not be as legally binding or strong. and again not to mention giving it a different name is silly, insulting and discrimination.
    It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?

    3.) well its a good thing this isnt happening and that the super vast majority of gays dont want to do anything of the sort.
    To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".

    equal but separate is discrimination and doesnt work thats already proven, did you see my example everybody runs from and nobody has the guts to even try to answer.
    Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.

  7. #287
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.
    That was one possibility, but not the one that the state of Washington went with.

    It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?
    If civil unions and marriage are the same, but only go by different names, what is the point of having them both?

    To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".
    No changes are being forced on any one.

    Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.
    The legal contract is what a marraige is from the states point of view. The rest is up to the participants.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    [QUOTE=Redress;1061231437]
    That was one possibility, but not the one that the state of Washington went with.
    Okay, but that doesn't rule out people wanting to change things to be PC. I did hear a clever vow for it though, "I now pronounce you spouses for life." I thought that sounded pretty good.


    If civil unions and marriage are the same, but only go by different names, what is the point of having them both?
    Just so that the PC police aren't marking their territory.


    No changes are being forced on any one.
    We will have to wait and see until it passes in MOST states, if not all states. That is when we will find out.


    The legal contract is what a marraige is from the states point of view. The rest is up to the participants.
    This is true, but I still can't help but think of the other thread where they want to change terminology. I know that this one example in and of itself is NOT such a big deal, but it is the principal of it. Now that gay people are allowed to marry in some states, what changes will they demand to make marriage more PC for them?

  9. #289
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post

    Okay, but that doesn't rule out people wanting to change things to be PC. I did hear a clever vow for it though, "I now pronounce you spouses for life." I thought that sounded pretty good.
    Wedding vows are not determined by the state. No one is changing anything about marriage except who can get married.

    Just so that the PC police aren't marking their territory.
    Actually, not letting those dirty gays be able to use the word marriage sounds PC to me, not the other way around.

    We will have to wait and see until it passes in MOST states, if not all states. That is when we will find out.
    No. SSM simply allows other people to get married.

    This is true, but I still can't help but think of the other thread where they want to change terminology. I know that this one example in and of itself is NOT such a big deal, but it is the principal of it. Now that gay people are allowed to marry in some states, what changes will they demand to make marriage more PC for them?
    No one wanted to change terminology, a form was outdated and had to be updated. There is no longer necessarily one bride, one groom. You are making a mountain out of nothing.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #290
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Wedding vows are not determined by the state. No one is changing anything about marriage except who can get married.



    Actually, not letting those dirty gays be able to use the word marriage sounds PC to me, not the other way around.



    No. SSM simply allows other people to get married.



    No one wanted to change terminology, a form was outdated and had to be updated. There is no longer necessarily one bride, one groom. You are making a mountain out of nothing.
    I hope you're right.

Page 29 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... 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
  •