• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is most likely to happen: same sex marriages or civil unions?

Which is likely to to happen first for same sex couples: marriages or civil unions?


  • Total voters
    19

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
64,679
Reaction score
27,869
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am trying to get a realistic view on what people believe will most likely happen.

The argument goes on about if gays should have the right to marry the person that they want to actually marry, legally, and have that marriage recognized in every state.

But my question is more on what is most likely to happen, civil unions for same sex couples with the exact same or at least most of the same rights/responsibilities/benefits as opposite sex marriage or just same sex marriage? I'm looking for basis on current court cases moving up, judge and Justice views, laws associated with this, positions of those in Congress, the President, the people, and an overall legal standpoint. Not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking what you believe is likely to happen and when you would expect to see it.

I even want some discussion from those who believe it will never come and/or that there will/might be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and support for this in Congress.

Many against same sex marriage are in support of civil unions for same sex couples, with all the legal aspects of marriage, but without the name. I do not believe that this is likely to happen before marriage is simply opened up to same sex couples nationwide, like what happened after Loving v. VA.

Possible timelines that some might foresee could be interesting as well.
 
I am trying to get a realistic view on what people believe will most likely happen.

The argument goes on about if gays should have the right to marry the person that they want to actually marry, legally, and have that marriage recognized in every state.

But my question is more on what is most likely to happen, civil unions for same sex couples with the exact same or at least most of the same rights/responsibilities/benefits as opposite sex marriage or just same sex marriage? I'm looking for basis on current court cases moving up, judge and Justice views, laws associated with this, positions of those in Congress, the President, the people, and an overall legal standpoint. Not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking what you believe is likely to happen and when you would expect to see it.

I even want some discussion from those who believe it will never come and/or that there will/might be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and support for this in Congress.

Many against same sex marriage are in support of civil unions for same sex couples, with all the legal aspects of marriage, but without the name. I do not believe that this is likely to happen before marriage is simply opened up to same sex couples nationwide, like what happened after Loving v. VA.

Possible timelines that some might foresee could be interesting as well.

I believe they will allow 'civil unions', but will re-define a civil union so that it has all the same rights as a 'marriage'

I think that is perhaps the most stupid solution - arguing over 'terms' rather than principals, but I'm afraid that's the most-likely.

Why give homosexuals the same rights, but refuse to call it what it is? If they're in love, who are we to stop them? If my theory comes true, I will start calling my wife's and my 'marriage' a 'civil union'. Why should I feel entitled to a term and not someone else simply because of the gender I was born to prefer?
 
I don't foresee the Marriage License being struck down, nor the creation of "civil unions". Most likely, SSM will eventually be allowed and same sex couples will be able to freely enter into the contract of the Marriage License, as is their right. I don't really know time scale, I'd guess 10-15 years.
 
I suspect the courts will overturn DOMA and require that states and the federal government recognize SSM from states that allow it, which will swiftly bring about SSM for all who want it.
 
I am trying to get a realistic view on what people believe will most likely happen.

The argument goes on about if gays should have the right to marry the person that they want to actually marry, legally, and have that marriage recognized in every state.

But my question is more on what is most likely to happen, civil unions for same sex couples with the exact same or at least most of the same rights/responsibilities/benefits as opposite sex marriage or just same sex marriage? I'm looking for basis on current court cases moving up, judge and Justice views, laws associated with this, positions of those in Congress, the President, the people, and an overall legal standpoint. Not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking what you believe is likely to happen and when you would expect to see it.

I even want some discussion from those who believe it will never come and/or that there will/might be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and support for this in Congress.

Many against same sex marriage are in support of civil unions for same sex couples, with all the legal aspects of marriage, but without the name. I do not believe that this is likely to happen before marriage is simply opened up to same sex couples nationwide, like what happened after Loving v. VA.

Possible timelines that some might foresee could be interesting as well.

Anything else can be argued discrimination and when presented to courts has been ruled that way also. Its about equal rights.

Equal marriage for all is the most likely to happen because its the most sensible to our constitution. Civil unions would be "separate but equal" and we already know how that was wrong and didn't work out and was found unconstitutional.

When pushed to the limits it needs to Gay Rights will also find their way and yet more discrimination in america will be eliminated and th egood guys win again.

Im not sure WHEN gay rights will come to pass but it will be in my life time for sure and I wouldn't be shocked at all if it was within a 10 year time frame. Some states already allow it and yes I know others have voted laws to ban it but just like civil, women's rights and interracial marriage once its ruled unconstitutional that will be that and justice will be served.

also just for some info for you because thats what you want heres a quick basic outline and time line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1924
The Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights organization.

1948
Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality is far more widespread than was commonly believed.

1951
The Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, is formed by Harry Hay, considered by many to be the founder of the gay rights movement.

1956
The Daughters of Bilitis, a pioneering national lesbian organization, is founded.

1962
Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

1969
The Stonewall riots transform the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, fight back during a police raid on June 27, sparking three days of riots.

1973
The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.

1982
Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1993
The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces, was the result.

1996
In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”

2000
Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unionsbetween gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.” It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines as heterosexual.

2003
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

2004
On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.

2005
Civil unions become legal in Connecticut in October.

2006
Civil unions become legal in New Jersey in December.

2007
In November, the House of Representatives approves a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

2008
In February, a New York State appeals court unanimously votes that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states must be recognized by employers in New York, granting same-sex couples the same rights as other couples.

In February, the state of Oregon passes a law that allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners allowing them some spousal rights of married couples.

On May 15, the California Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. By November 3rd, more than 18,000 same-sex couples have married.

On November 4, California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage called Proposition 8. The attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, asked the state's Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The ban throws into question the validity of the more than 18,000 marriages already performed, but Attorney General Brown reiterated in a news release that he believed the same-sex marriages performed in California before November 4 should remain valid, and the California Supreme Court, which upheld the ban in May 2009, agreed, allowing those couples married under the old law to remain that way.

November 4 voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved the passage of measures that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas passed a measure intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children.

On October 10 the Supreme Court of Connecticut rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry. This makes Connecticut the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples. The court rules that the state cannot deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry under Connecticut's constitution, and that the state's civil union law does not provide same-sex couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

On November 12 same-sex marriages begin to be officially performed in Connecticut.

2009
On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejects the state law banning same-sex marriage. Twenty-one days later, county recorders are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On April 7, the Vermont Legislature votes to override Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry, legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature; the courts of the other states in which the marriage is legal—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa—gave approval.


On May 6, the governor of Maine legalized same-sex marriage in that state in Maine; however, citizens voted to overturn that law when they went to the polls in November, and Maine became the 31st state to ban the practice.

On June 3, New Hampshire governor John Lynch signs legislation allowing same-sex marriage. The law stipulates that religious organizations and their employees will not be required to participate in the ceremonies. New Hampshire is the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

On June 17, President Obama signs a referendum allowing the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. They will not be allowed full health coverage, however. This is Obama's first major initiative in his campaign promise to improve gay rights.
2010
March 3: Congress approves a law signed in December 2009 that legalizes same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

August 4: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

December 18: the U.S. Senate voted 65 to 31 in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Clinton-era military policy that forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Eight Republicans sided with the Democrats to strike down the ban. The ban will not be lifted officially until President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agree that the military is ready to enact the change and that it won't affect military readiness. On Dec. 18, President Obama officially repealed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also just for some info on percentage of people that have a view of something or disagree on something VS the Constitution and whats ruled right, this is what happened for interracial marriage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

In 1967(19 years later), about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

In 1991(43 years later), those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.

The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year.
which is pathetic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Currently I think 62% are against gay marriage? Ill have to check that. People now are smarter, with less bigotry and wants to discriminate so i think it will be in the near future.
 
Last edited:
I believe they will allow 'civil unions', but will re-define a civil union so that it has all the same rights as a 'marriage'

I think that is perhaps the most stupid solution - arguing over 'terms' rather than principals, but I'm afraid that's the most-likely.

Why give homosexuals the same rights, but refuse to call it what it is? If they're in love, who are we to stop them? If my theory comes true, I will start calling my wife's and my 'marriage' a 'civil union'. Why should I feel entitled to a term and not someone else simply because of the gender I was born to prefer?

I am just wondering why you think that civil unions are likely to come first? I really am just curious because I see opening marriage up to same sex couples as easier than changing everything. Do you think that some Congressmembers may try to preempt a decision by the SCOTUS that would strike down DOMA by instead implementing same sex civil unions? (I see this as really the most likely reason for same sex civil unions with federal recognition to get any headway. I honestly believe that many who say they are for civil unions are more for hoping that DOMA holds up as long as possible and maybe even hoping that they could get enough support for an actual Anti-SSM Amendment.)
 
If left to the legislators, we would have civil unions first. However, I think the SCOTUS is likely to make the first federal move on this issue, and I think they are mostly likely to go straight to marriage.
 
I am just wondering why you think that civil unions are likely to come first? I really am just curious because I see opening marriage up to same sex couples as easier than changing everything. Do you think that some Congressmembers may try to preempt a decision by the SCOTUS that would strike down DOMA by instead implementing same sex civil unions? (I see this as really the most likely reason for same sex civil unions with federal recognition to get any headway. I honestly believe that many who say they are for civil unions are more for hoping that DOMA holds up as long as possible and maybe even hoping that they could get enough support for an actual Anti-SSM Amendment.)

Yes I also disagree because I cant see nation recognized civil unions with out somebody bringing up separate but equal references and the 14th amendment.

Law wise, rights wise, common sense wise, ease wise and per the constitution marriage seems most likely.
 
Marriage seems more likely, however the government should get out of marriage all together. Eliminate all the benefits that come from the state the results in getting married.
 
I'm guessing SSM is more likely than civil unions – but I could be wrong.

Personally, I would prefer the elimination of a legal marriage contract altogether - for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages, to be replaced by a "civil union" or something of the sort...

But that's really only a difference in terms – the effect would be equal legal union rights for everyone.
 
SSM, I really doubt the government would give Civil Unions equal status as marriage when they could just call it marriage.
 
Other - as in no change in current law. Not in my lifetime anyway. SSM fails big every time, every where it appears on a ballot.
 
Other - as in no change in current law. Not in my lifetime anyway. SSM fails big every time, every where it appears on a ballot.

I really doubt the ballot box is where SSM will be instituted.
 
Other - as in no change in current law. Not in my lifetime anyway. SSM fails big every time, every where it appears on a ballot.

Has shown in the thread earlier the ballot box could matter very little in cases of discrimination.
 
I really doubt the ballot box is where SSM will be instituted.

Good point, it will have to be imposed judicially, but again, not in my lifetime. Maybe two or three more generations at the soonest.

Somebody said society always moves to the left. I don't know. I think it's more like a pendulum. The 1920s were more liberal, say, than the 1940s. My kids will probably be a tad more liberal than I, theirs a tad more conservative in turn. It would take quite a broad sweep of the pendulum to gain voter approval.
 
Has shown in the thread earlier the ballot box could matter very little in cases of discrimination.

Not sure what you mean, but there is no discrimination when it comes to SSM. We all have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.
 
Good point, it will have to be imposed judicially, but again, not in my lifetime. Maybe two or three more generations at the soonest.

Somebody said society always moves to the left. I don't know. I think it's more like a pendulum. The 1920s were more liberal, say, than the 1940s. My kids will probably be a tad more liberal than I, theirs a tad more conservative in turn. It would take quite a broad sweep of the pendulum to gain voter approval.

Actually I would be surprised if it didn't happen this decade. It's already trending that way, and there are a few court cases that could see SSM introduced within the next 5 years.
 
Not sure what you mean, but there is no discrimination when it comes to SSM. We all have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

Why should a man be able to marry a woman, but not for a woman to be able to marry a woman? It is discrimination, trying to deny that is dishonest.
 
Actually I would be surprised if it didn't happen this decade. It's already trending that way, and there are a few court cases that could see SSM introduced within the next 5 years

Well. Strike while the iron is hot, I suppose. We are in the midst of a spirited culture war. Could be. Do you think there is enough strength on the right to amend the constitution? I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
Why should a man be able to marry a woman, but not for a woman to be able to marry a woman? It is discrimination, trying to deny that is dishonest
So you frame it as a women's rights issue. Cute trick. It does leave homosexual men out of the picture, though, doesn't it?

A woman has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as a man has. Equal. No unfair discrimination.
 
Last edited:
I think civil unions will happen. It would be wrong to go against state laws and illegally force all states to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships.
 
Not sure what you mean, but there is no discrimination when it comes to SSM. We all have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

Earlier in the thread I posted stats that ballots dont have to matter, for example interracil marriage was made legal when 72% of the country was against it. Currently I think only 62% are against gay marriage.

And yes please save the spin, it is discrimination, saying otherwise is just dishonest.
Blacks had the same rights marry to just not whites, that was discrimination,
Blacks had the right to drink from water fountains just not certain ones, that was discrimination.
Gay marriage is very much about equal rights and ending discrimination.
 
Actually I would be surprised if it didn't happen this decade. It's already trending that way, and there are a few court cases that could see SSM introduced within the next 5 years.

I mostly agree, 10 years maybe be a little faster but it will not be 20.
 
I think civil unions will happen. It would be wrong to go against state laws and illegally force all states to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships.

Its been done before and isnt wrong when it is establishing equal rights and ending discrimination. If something is unconstitutional it isnt illegal at all to force states to end discrimination and practice equal rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom