Nothing imho, but I question, if they will concede alll the rights and such, why not call marriage? Is it insecurity?
Printable View
Nothing imho, but I question, if they will concede alll the rights and such, why not call marriage? Is it insecurity?
I see marriage as it is. This is something new, why not treat it that way. Give equal rights and equal access and call it "Civil Union" There is a large support base for that.
Fine with me. When the time comes, my spouse and I will be married.
But, from the homosexual point of view, will we be better than them psychologically because we are married and they aren't?
I don't know, can't answer that. I guess this where my aruguing stops if we concede at civil union because now we need the opinion of a actual homosexual couple I guess.
Good call Road. I would go for that. It seems like a relatively good comprimise.
-Cheers-
Do you mean jealousy?
I think the differences between Civil Union and marriage depend on the people getting together.
Example: I've had several girlfriends that if i had wanted to spend my life with, they would want a big church ect.. Where i would be fine just going to a court to become married.
I think the same is true for gays. I know homosexuals that are religious and would want a marrage in a church (granted some churches would not allow that, but others would, not everyone thinks god hates gays) others would be happy walking down to the court house to tie the knot
I think that is a good idea. All you religious and rights people clog stuff up so many times. Sometimes it's for a good reason, usually it's not though. This is one of those bad times.Quote:
Give equal rights and equal access and call it "Civil Union" There is a large support base for that.
-Cheers-
Humm seeing that I wouldn't recognize a jewish, mormon, baptist, presbaterian, justaice of the peace, ect. type marraige as a true marrage, and I am smart enough to be able to handle the difrence between a legal marrage and a true marrage why should I object to gays getting the right to marry in the legal sense?
Now I would be all for the civil union idea...if we eradicated all forms of legal marrage and grafatherd every one who bought a marrage license into civil unions. Lets make marrage purly a religious thing and allow the various religiouns decide who they accept and reject as married in their church and have a seperate legal object for tax, insurance and all the other advantages marrage gives you under the law.
Umm road closed you got this one wrong, if you are married in one state another dosn't have to accept it, in fact in the past we have had cases where spouses have been seperated do to diferences in state laws. Now that hasen't happened in recent memory, in fact the last time it happened was before utah got rid of piligamy but with some states looking at accepting gay marrage it looks like that issue is going to rear its ugly head again.Quote:
//edit One thing people don't get is: it cannot be left to the states. WHy? Because if one state passes it, all the other states MUST recognize it. It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue in this case. John Kerry stating that it's a state issue is getting around answering straight questions directed at whether he supports the amendment or not. One may dislike Bush's point of view, but you know EXACTLY where he stands. [/B]
Nope don't think so, although one could argue that an item is legal in one state and illegal in another, the fact is this. The constitution implicately states that legal "documents" produced in one state are to be viable in "all" states. Here I'll post it, it's Article IV and there is some buzz around it although I made a conclusion long ago that it wasn't "really" a state issue:
Full faith and credit, is the key. If that was not the case your then perhaps your drivers license, and current marriage or birth certificate would not be valid outside of state boudary.Quote:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
That may be over simplification but it makes sense to me. You can't argue this legal point today. Perhaps in the past that may have been the case, you even used the Mormon tendancy toward polygamy.
The Mormons were definitely persecuted, not even remotely accepted for their polygamy lifestyle as compared to gays, early on they were hunted by militias and the saints sought out for the purpose of murder. Eventually they were all driven to Utah, as we know. Utah DID NOT become a state until the mid to late 1890s. In 1862 an anti-polygamy law was passed with Lincolns approval. Hmm what was that.... ah the Morill Act I think. It gets worse for them, later a law was passed that actually placed them in Jail. I am getting long, but to make a long story short, that practice was NEVER legal and that fact invalidates the argument. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint stopped supporting and sactioning polygamy in the 1800s, in fact Wilford Woodruff made this statement in part...
This is how I understand the issue. Polygamy was never legal.Quote:
Inasmuch as Laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort. I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.