NationStates Jolt Archive

How about if we made a bill to suggest that the government categorize all unions, or partnerships if you will, gay or straight, as "civil unions" and left the definition of "marriage" up to the churches?

That way, the church gets their way, and the bi's and gays get theirs.

You got my vote...although I don't quite understand the question, it is what you were discussing in my thread right?

You got my vote...although I don't quite understand the question, it is what you were discussing in my thread right?


Yep. I wanted to see if many people agreed with the idea, as I hadn't heard it before.

No comments? Or is everyone just too lazy to type today?

It's not a new idea, and it's essentially just a change in terminology. I believe that if every voter understood that legal marriage and religious marriage are entirely separate things, same-sex marriage would have much more support.

Yeah, but the thing is they won't.

It's not a new idea, and it's essentially just a change in terminology. I believe that if every voter understood that legal marriage and religious marriage are entirely separate things, same-sex marriage would have much more support.
marriage as in between a man and a women or do you live in california.

At least no one has voted "bad idea" yet...

At least no one has voted "bad idea" yet...

Oh, I'm pretty sure some fundie will get in here soon and spoil it all.

marriage as in between a man and a women or do you live in california.

Things are changing constantly around the world, why can't the rules for marriage change?

marriage as in between a man and a women or do you live in california.

Actually the only two states I've lived in are Massachusetts and California, so :thbbt:.
And there's no reason that a legal contract entitling two people to be considered one legal entity should be restricted to people of different sexes. If any two people both agree to take part in that contract with the government, I see no reason the government should deny it.

Things are going a bit slow here...but since I like your idea I'm going to give you a rating of 4 stars!

Things are going a bit slow here...but since I like your idea I'm going to give you a rating of 4 stars!

Cool! Thanks!

How about if we made a bill to suggest that the government categorize all unions, or partnerships if you will, gay or straight, as "civil unions" and left the definition of "marriage" up to the churches?

That way, the church gets their way, and the bi's and gays get theirs.

Why not leave the definition of marriage to those getting married?

Why not leave the definition of marriage to those getting married?

Because the religious right won't let us. I thought they might find this more practical.

Because the religious right won't let us. I thought they might find this more practical.

And that begs the question of whether they 'own' the word marriage.

vote 4 stars for yourself, I don't think my vote alone can cause this to get 4 stars.

This is the plan I tend to give most support to. Although, I think it should be called 'civil marriage', not 'civil union', simply for aesthetic reasons ("Why yes, I am civilly united... that's my civil partner over there..." or "Why yes, I am civilly married... that's my husband/wife over there...", which is easier?).

Plus, if it's called civil marriage, it'll be a fairly small step between 'marriage' becoming an acceptable blanket term again.

But, by far the best thing about this system would be that even most religious people find it hard to argue against without seeming unreasonable or uninformed. And that's just spiffy. Or maybe I just wanted a chance to use the word 'spiffy'. I don't know. :D

In the United States the Faithful have a mojority of the vote, that equals power.
SO indirectly they do own the word marriage.
Second that state may recognize a contractual union(civil union) between two people and never call it marriage and it is still legally binding.
Third I know Muslims in my city(My cousin included) who Wed at the Mosque but never become "Legally" married, because as long as they were married in the Mosque it is as legal as they feel it needs to be.
The arguement from Homosexuals is the right to equal treatment under the law.
They can be treated equally without the word "marriage", however if this is just another pissing contest with the faithful of this country(which I believe it is) it is not about equal protection under the law, it is about forcing broad social acceptance of their deviant behavior, by attacking what is a commonly held religious sacrament. A sacred right.
If it was just about equal protection then you could call it anything as long the same rights were given.
People disagree with the Homosexual lifestyle, there is nothing wrong with that.
Contrary to the politically correct crap that is forced down our throats we as a people have every right to dislike someone for any reason we choose, no matter how mundane or arbitrary.

This is a good idea. One problem is that some people are not just against same-sex marriage, they are just against homosexuality, and they think a ban on unions between homosexuals will help lower the number of gay couples.

Um, I'm just saying it should be called the same thing, and it not be called marriage. The churches can do cerimonies for "marriage." Therefore, everyone is equal. What's wrong with that?

This is a good idea. One problem is that some people are not just against same-sex marriage, they are just against homosexuality, and they think a ban on unions between homosexuals will help lower the number of gay couples.
That is a problem, but there have always been bigots of some kind for everyone.

This is a good idea. One problem is that some people are not just against same-sex marriage, they are just against homosexuality, and they think a ban on unions between homosexuals will help lower the number of gay couples.

Actually, it does quite the opposite.

In the United States the Faithful have a mojority of the vote, that equals power.
SO indirectly they do own the word marriage.
Second that state may recognize a contractual union(civil union) between two people and never call it marriage and it is still legally binding.
Third I know Muslims in my city(My cousin included) who Wed at the Mosque but never become "Legally" married, because as long as they were married in the Mosque it is as legal as they feel it needs to be.
The arguement from Homosexuals is the right to equal treatment under the law.
They can be treated equally without the word "marriage", however if this is just another pissing contest with the faithful of this country(which I believe it is) it is not about equal protection under the law, it is about forcing broad social acceptance of their deviant behavior, by attacking what is a commonly held religious sacrament. A sacred right.
If it was just about equal protection then you could call it anything as long the same rights were given.
People disagree with the Homosexual lifestyle, there is nothing wrong with that.
Contrary to the politically correct crap that is forced down our throats we as a people have every right to dislike someone for any reason we choose, no matter how mundane or arbitrary.

Equal but Seperate =! treated equally. Go read up on history and law, and then get back to us.

Equal but Seperate =! treated equally. Go read up on history and law, and then get back to us.
Go read up on your Law.
A word is not protected.
Marriage contrary to everyones opinion is not actually a thing.
What is binding according to the law is the contract.
Skibereen is half right your are completely wrong.
Here is a simple flaw in your logic in action.
Female
Male
Equal but seperate.
Pacific Islander
Asian
African-American
Non-White Hispanic
Equal but seperate.
Marriage
Civil Union
Equal but seperate.
The fundametal role in the idea of civil liberties is not to force conformity but to protect individuality.
Come back when you graduate highschool.

The arguement from Homosexuals is the right to equal treatment under the law.
They can be treated equally without the word "marriage", however if this is just another pissing contest with the faithful of this country(which I believe it is) it is not about equal protection under the law, it is about forcing broad social acceptance of their deviant behavior, by attacking what is a commonly held religious sacrament. A sacred right.
If it was just about equal protection then you could call it anything as long the same rights were given.

ding ding ding

But here's an idea

let each state legislature/federal government/dictatorship/communist party/whatever around the world decide for itself and set its own laws.

The entire American structure is incorrect.
Marriage should be completely out of the hands of the state.
You should be able to "partner" with whom ever you wish that is capable of entering into a legal contract.
These titles should be kept with the dogmatic ceremonies from which they came.

The entire American structure is incorrect.
Marriage should be completely out of the hands of the state.
You should be able to "partner" with whom ever you wish that is capable of entering into a legal contract.
These titles should be kept with the dogmatic ceremonies from which they came.

I agree with that, as I am a Libertarian, but it won't ever happen any time soon. I think this idea that I have could.

Third I know Muslims in my city(My cousin included) who Wed at the Mosque but never become "Legally" married, because as long as they were married in the Mosque it is as legal as they feel it needs to be.

That's the norm really, most religious groups feel as though the important part about marriage is that it's done in the traditions to suit God/Allah/whomever that it's legitimate.

The government sort of stuck its nose in to try and help control population growth as well as for things it deemed necessary, like insurance/pensions for military vets and the sort.

I'm curious Uginin, if the government stepped entirely away from marriage, how would you handle regulating such things as military pension/insurance plans (from what I've seen, you libertarians at least do believe in taxes for the armed forces) for spouses and the sort?

I'm curious Uginin, if the government stepped entirely away from marriage, how would you handle regulating such things as military pension/insurance plans (from what I've seen, you libertarians at least do believe in taxes for the armed forces) for spouses and the sort?


Um, I'm not really sure. I'd have to look at the LP site again. As I said before though, us libertarians have no chance in hell of getting the gov. outta marriage, so I think we should make up this bill and send it to congress.

They can be treated equally without the word "marriage", however if this is just another pissing contest with the faithful of this country(which I believe it is) it is not about equal protection under the law, it is about forcing broad social acceptance of their deviant behavior, by attacking what is a commonly held religious sacrament. A sacred right.
If it was just about equal protection then you could call it anything as long the same rights were given.

I can't speak for the whole queer and queer-friendly community, but I'm not in a pissing contest. I want equal protection under the law so if I marry a man I will have the rights I need to build a life with him.
The reason I'm concerned about calling it something else is because there is no valid reason to, it's blatantly separate and unequal, and it would only serve as an excuse to deny same-sex couples rights.

This is an outrage! To have those deviant heterosexuals participating in the institution of civil unions is a threat to not only civil unions but society as a whole. What's next? Straight people entering into civil unions with their siblings and/or major appliances and/or livestock? :D

I can't speak for the whole queer and queer-friendly community, but I'm not in a pissing contest. I want equal protection under the law so if I marry a man I will have the rights I need to build a life with him.
The reason I'm concerned about calling it something else is because there is no valid reason to, it's blatantly separate and unequal, and it would only serve as an excuse to deny same-sex couples rights.

Well, this plan isn't calling it something different. This is calling everything civil unions. The gov. would not recognise just church marriages as they don't now. It's all about the marriage licence, not the ceremony.

This is an outrage! To have those deviant heterosexuals participating in the institution of civil unions is a threat to not only civil unions but society as a whole. What's next? Straight people entering into civil unions with their siblings and/or major appliances and/or livestock? :D

Ah! The sarcastic circus has arrived!

Well, this plan isn't calling it something different. This is calling everything civil unions. The gov. would not recognise just church marriages as they don't now. It's all about the marriage licence, not the ceremony.

I know, Uginin, but you have to look at what people are quoting, and accept that you can't force your thread to stay on topic.

The entire American structure is incorrect.
Marriage should be completely out of the hands of the state.
You should be able to "partner" with whom ever you wish that is capable of entering into a legal contract.
These titles should be kept with the dogmatic ceremonies from which they came.

Bah, you stole my idea.

The gov. should only recognize civil unions. Marriage should be the left in the hands of the churches. (i.e., when a man and a womam get married, as far as the government is concerned it is just a civil union, that way the gov. can give the same treatment for gays as it does to straights.)

I rule. It's a perfect idea.

BTW, currently marriage is not a contract, it is a legal status. Hence you cannot contract all provisions, obviously.

Well, seeing as ASU and the Commitee on Presidential Debates have just been served a summons by the Libertarian party, perhaps this will be an issue you will see in the debate on Wed. That is if the LP wins of course. Badnarick and Cobb got arrested tonight.

BTW, currently marriage is not a contract, it is a legal status. Hence you cannot contract all provisions, obviously.

It's a contract with GOD and this:fluffle::gundge:is what he does to homosexuals!

It's a contract with GOD and this:fluffle::gundge:is what he does to homosexuals!
I personally can't see God forsaking homosexuals.

How about if we made a bill to suggest that the government categorize all unions, or partnerships if you will, gay or straight, as "civil unions" and left the definition of "marriage" up to the churches?

That way, the church gets their way, and the bi's and gays get theirs.

Plagarist. That's my idea. You know it is.

At least give me some credit.

It's a contract with GOD and this:fluffle::gundge:is what he does to homosexuals!

I cannot speak for god. As per the government it is a status not a contract.

that is currently the law, and always will be even if gays get the right to marry.

you do realize that a civil union is a status not a contract don't you?

the problem with Gay marriage is society is not yet ready. get Civil Unions & the same rights as married people, the majority of americans will accept that. Then in 5 or 10 years go back and get your marriage when society has accepted the idea.

One cannot expect for a dramatic shift to be made so fast. The harder you push for gay marriage the harder people will push back and the cause will end up being worse off.

Well, I think society IS ready. It's just the mega-religious are still stuck in the 50s.

Well, I think society IS ready. It's just the mega-religious are still stuck in the 50s.
Swell! ...erm thats the only 50's slang term i know....anyways.
Society is ready in the blue states, red states would probably end up becoming more radical and results could end up fatal. I personally think it should be up to the state to decide if they want to acknowlege same sex contracts, marriages, or whatever you kids are calling it these days.

You know, technically, a Christian Government (like the US and the UK are supposed to be) shouldn't recognise any marriage between non-Christians. Can you see that happening?

Marriage is a concept belonging to, for want of a better word, religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc). Therefore if a government truly follows a religion it should deal with marriage as that religion dictates, as it should deal with other laws. If the government is secular it should get it's ass out of marriage. That's where they'll have to have Civil Unions for tax etc.

Well, according to the Treaty of Tripoli, the USA is NOT a christian nation. That's just something the fundies like to say. We have seperation of church and state, so, basically, the USA doesn't have to legally recognise marriage at all!!!

Well, according to the Treaty of Tripoli, the USA is NOT a christian nation. That's just something the fundies like to say. We have seperation of church and state, so, basically, the USA doesn't have to legally recognise marriage at all!!!

Righty, didn't know that. Bush is apparently a Christian. A fine advert I must say. *cough*B*LL*X*cough*. So he should be trying to lead the country in that direction. Of course he should have fired all the lying advisors and whitehouse staff and not killed thousands of innocent people in an illegal war. But hey. Wouldn't say it to his face.

Why did they have a treaty ceremony in Tripoli? Lebanon or Libya? It was just because it sounded good wasn't it. You'd never get the Famous Treaty of Milton Keynes!