Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma
The only absurdity here is your rebuttal....
You asked for a list of states that banned SSM. I provided it. 20 states, including some of the most populated ones in the US, outlawed all types of civil unions with the express purpose of preventing gay civil unions. Nothing absurd about that.
I will re-state my position. I support marriage equality and I don't care who you ****, do "bolivian marching powder" with, or marry. It's none of my business.
But you do want to stop people from demanding equal treatment under the law? How strange.
I am also a strong belliever in this government is too large, to convoluted, and too complicated. One such way of simplification it to remove who the government can and can't say who is married, and call EVERYONE a civil union.
1) The evidence is clear that many conservatives will not tolerate the semantic change you propose.
2) I have seen absolutely no sign that anyone, other than a tiny handful of libertarians and anti-SSM advocates who have given up, want to strip marriage of its legal status.
How many people want to strip all spouses of the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner?
How many people want to eliminate the clauses in estate law, that allow a spouse to receive an estate without taxation?
Do we want to trash all the laws relating to child custody?
We should also note that on some level, this is not about the government "telling you what to do." The government isn't telling you that you must get married, or must get divorced. It's acting as a neutral arbitrator, and enforcing the functions that we as a society want associated with marriage.
Or, think of it another way. Let's say we eliminate every legal aspect to marriage. People can marry whoever they want. Now, instead of signing a single legal document to formalize the marriage, you need to...
• Write / rewrite both of your wills
• Sign health care proxies for each other
• Sign binding contracts that determine how child custody will be handled
• Sign pre-nuptial agreements
• Write contracts dividing your existing property during the marriage
• Gnash your teeth when you realize your spouse will have to pay estate taxes for whatever said spouse inherits
• Lose out on Social Security or military survivor benefits
• Lose out on spousal eligibility for employer-provided health care
Wow. Yeah, I can see how removing the legal aspects of marriage will make things simpler for everyone.
now you have "civil unions". states CANNOT deny ones partner from seeing thier loved ones as it would then violate the 14th amendment.
They certainly tried.
It's also not about just
seeing a loved one. It's about actually making decisions about their medical care, and the state cannot deal with such a critical issue in a casual or informal manner.
It's really quite simple, and this fascist style "BELEIEVE AS WE 100% or even though you support gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot!!!!!" nonsense is the same intolerant crap, you are suppoosedly against.
Sorry, but that really doesn't fly.
1) You're basically suggesting a semantic change. That has fooled no one.
2) You're suggesting that marriage have no legal consequences whatsoever. That also won't work.
3) SSM is a civil rights issue, and in this respect is absolutely no different than interracial marriage -- something that lots of people screeched about when it was in the process of legalization.
4) We don't allow employers, hospitals or other organizations to unilaterally approve or disapprove of anyone's marriage prior to granting benefits or legal rights.
5) There is ultimately no justification for treating homosexuals like second-class citizens, and denying them the same rights and privileges as anyone else -- right down to the name of an institution.
6) Removing all legal aspects and consequences from marriage, especially if you're doing it in order to allegedly make people accept SSM, is throwing the baby out with the bath-water.