Civil Unions

What's the difference?

Blackdog said:

Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.

Click to expand...

The DOMA attempts to invalidate a section of the Constition.

It can't do that.

Blackdog said:

So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Supreme Court has a long long history of denying people the freedoms the Constitution clearly grants them.

Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade, Kelo vs New London, etc.

The logical tactic you're employing is called "argument from authority", and it's not valid.

The court is extremely fallible. It even allowed FDR's programs to stand, even though they were clearly in violation of the Constitution.

Blackdog said:

This does not apply to "marriage" as no ones rights are being infringed according to the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

I don't allow the government to define what my "rights" are.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states all persons shall be granted equal protection under the law.

Which part of "persons" is confusing you, or are you having difficulty with the "equal" part?

It's a serious question, not a joke.

Blackdog said:

Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.

Click to expand...

The DOMA attempts to invalidate a section of the Constition.

It can't do that.

Blackdog said:

So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Supreme Court has a long long history of denying people the freedoms the Constitution clearly grants them.

Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade, Kelo vs New London, etc.

The logical tactic you're employing is called "argument from authority", and it's not valid.

The court is extremely fallible. It even allowed FDR's programs to stand, even though they were clearly in violation of the Constitution.

Blackdog said:

Please explain how I am a "bigot" by pointing out the law as it stands?

Click to expand...

You mean outside of the fact that you accept that some people can be treated as second-class citizens in your country for no good reason?

How's your acceptance level on a law that would prohibit marriage between blacks and whites?

Layla_Z said:

My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.

Click to expand...

The government need not be involved at all. There should be no marriage license or civil union. Things can be handled with separate contract and any "benefit" tax or legal wise from marriage should be removed.

American said:

What's the difference?

Click to expand...

If there needs to be two different titles then a difference must exist.

Would you be OK with being labeled a "registered occupant" rather then a "citizen" like everyone else? What's the difference right? You still live in the country and get the same benefits. You just have to accept there there is a group of "citizens" out there that want to make damn sure you are never labeled a "citizen" and will always be labeled a "registered occupant".

But there is no difference so it's OK. It's not discrimination. :roll:

Ikari said:

The government need not be involved at all. There should be no marriage license or civil union. Things can be handled with separate contract and any "benefit" tax or legal wise from marriage should be removed.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you need some sort of tax and legal title for grouping purposes? That's the only reason I am in favor of the civil union title. Just so there is an appropriate group such as 'Single', "Dependent', 'Civil Union', 'Spouse'.

Personally I don't like civil union but for lack of a better title I am accepting it.

Blackdog said:

OK this is to all of you as you seem pretty ignorant at this point.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. Then actually follow the arguments.

You people assume way to much for no reason.

I have never seen such ignorance on any board I have ever posted on before. Oh wait, yes I have: the Democrat underground.

Goodbye.

Click to expand...

Oh you're crossing a line there...DP is NOTHING like DU.....NOTHING.

Gibberish said:

Wouldn't you need some sort of tax and legal title for grouping purposes? That's the only reason I am in favor of the civil union title. Just so there is an appropriate group such as 'Single', "Dependent', 'Civil Union', 'Spouse'.

Personally I don't like civil union but for lack of a better title I am accepting it.

Click to expand...

"Married" works just fine.

"Civilly Unioned" sorta presumes the two spouses are very very polite to one another, doesn't it?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

"Married" works just fine.

Click to expand...

Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married".

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

"Civilly Unioned" sorta presumes the two spouses are very very polite to one another, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?

Gibberish said:

Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married".


Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?

Click to expand...

Not that I have any room at all to correct anyone's spelling or grammar, but you mis-spelled "sociological".

Just a friendly fyi :2wave:

Jerry said:

Not that I have any room at all to correct anyone's spelling or grammar, but you mis-spelled "sociological".

Just a friendly fyi :2wave:

Click to expand...

If it is a label housed in religion and given only after taking part in a religious ceremony then I call it a religious label.

Would you say "priest", "saint", "baptized", and "sinner" are sociological rather then religious labels as well?

My position is simple, states retain the rights to assign laws to marriage if a governing body just MUST have it's hands in the process at all. Barring governance over marriage and other personal behaviors, the only time the fed should have a say is married couples moving to a state that doesn't have compatible protections, and finally, if a church does not want to perform a marriage ceremony for whatever grounds they choose, that must be respected as a freedom of religion issue.

Gibberish said:

Would you say "priest", "saint", "baptized", and "sinner" are sociological rather then religious labels as well?

Click to expand...

Normally I would agree here, but now that we have an NFL player named Priest Holmes, designers that put Saint in their marketing names, etc. the rules changed a little.:mrgreen:

Gibberish said:

If it is a label housed in religion and given only after taking part in a religious ceremony then I call it a religious label.

Would you say "priest", "saint", "baptized", and "sinner" are sociological rather then religious labels as well?

Click to expand...

Religion is a key agent of socialization, everyone with a high school education knows that, so to pretend that this is news and argue that religion is somehow a stand alone entity is patently dishonest.

All the labels, the place of the wedding, the titles of those involved, etc..those are all drapings, decorations and flavor for the same damn thing Atheists do.

It's different only in superficial appearance.

Gibberish said:

Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married".


Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?

Click to expand...

"Married" describes it just perfectly.

If bigots don't like it, they're not required to. It's a free country, they can not like anyone they want.

But they're not supposed to be allowed to interfere in other people's lives.

Jerry said:

Religion is a key agent of socialization, everyone with a high school education knows that, so to pretend that this is news and argue that religion is somehow a stand alone entity is patently dishonest.

All the labels, the place of the wedding, the titles of those involved, etc..those are all drapings, decorations and flavor for the same damn thing Atheists do.

It's different only in superficial appearance.

Click to expand...

You haven't seen gay weddings...er commitment ceremonies or whatever they call them.

The only visible differences between a gay wedding and a heterosexual wedding is the two guys on the top of the wedding cake and the fact that the "bride" might be sporting a real moustache under that veil.

I joke...but I sold enough wedding cakes to gays and lesbians to know that they can be just as committed to their partners as any hetero couple, and that's all that really matters, IMO. They want to get married under the law just like heteros? Fine, doesn't hurt anyone else.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

They want to get married under the law just like heteros? Fine, doesn't hurt anyone else.

Click to expand...

Even if it did, we would still allow it.

We allow gambling, smoking, and all other sorts of damaging behavior.

Jerry said:

Religion is a key agent of socialization, everyone with a high school education knows that, so to pretend that this is news and argue that religion is somehow a stand alone entity is patently dishonest.

All the labels, the place of the wedding, the titles of those involved, etc..those are all drapings, decorations and flavor for the same damn thing Atheists do.

It's different only in superficial appearance.

Click to expand...

Well then that's an argument to make marriage a universal term and removed from any religious association.

I was speaking to those in this thread, and the majority of the opponents of legalizing gay marriage, that believe marriage is a religious institution and that our how our laws recognize marriage should be dictated by their religion.

Why in the world would you use a different term when a perfectly good one already exists? Religion doesn't own marriage, it never has and never will, I couldn't care less if it offends the theotards that someone they don't like is using a word they lay claim to, they need to grow the hell up.

Would we have been having this debate a few decades ago when multi-racial marriage became common? Oh, let's call their marriage something different because it might offend the racist religious nutballs!

The whole debate is ludicrous. :roll:

I really don't see how people can think that the legal version of marriage is still religious in its nature considering that it violates the rules of most religious groups in the US for marriage. People arguing from a religious standpoint are being ridiculous because clearly the legal institution of marriage is secular and the marriage laws would have nothing to do with the marriage in their churches.

YamiB. said:

I really don't see how people can think that the legal version of marriage is still religious in its nature considering that it violates the rules of most religious groups in the US for marriage. People arguing from a religious standpoint are being ridiculous because clearly the legal institution of marriage is secular and the marriage laws would have nothing to do with the marriage in their churches.

Click to expand...

I agree. Like I said before, there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....

Bodhisattva said:

there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....

Click to expand...

sweeeeeeeeeping generalization. not one argument to deny anyone from marrying anyone they want.

Cephus said:

Why in the world would you use a different term when a perfectly good one already exists? Religion doesn't own marriage, it never has and never will, I couldn't care less if it offends the theotards that someone they don't like is using a word they lay claim to, they need to grow the hell up.

Would we have been having this debate a few decades ago when multi-racial marriage became common? Oh, let's call their marriage something different because it might offend the racist religious nutballs!

The whole debate is ludicrous. :roll:

Click to expand...

I think dismissing the sociological value of the label and what it represents out-of-hand as you just did demonstrates ignorance.

Clearly, if the label meant nothing, gays wouldn't push for it.

Your post shows that you don't really grasp either side of the issue, and that you don't really care to, either.

Cephus said:

Religion doesn't own marriage, it never has and never will, I couldn't care less if it offends the theotards that someone they don't like is using a word they lay claim to, they need to grow the hell up.

Click to expand...

This, I am afraid, is an extremely inaccurate statement. Up until quite recently, Religion DID own marriage.

Bodhisattva said:

I agree. Like I said before, there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....

Click to expand...

Take CA for example: Even in the face of Prop8, gays still today have access to share with a person of the SAME gender each and every single right, without any exception at all what so ever, that heteros have.

Yet that's not enough. Gays cry inequality, and they are correct, but not in the way it appears.

The 14th amendment grantees equality under the law, and today gays in CA have achieved equality under the law.

Where gays are still unequal in not under the law, but sociologically, yet there is no grantee to be equal in society nor can any court ruling dictate sociological acceptance.

DGomez said:

This, I am afraid, is an extremely inaccurate statement. Up until quite recently, Religion DID own marriage.

Click to expand...

This is completely accurate. Marriage, until recently, was always a religious institution.