NationStates Jolt Archive

A constitutional ammendment banning marriage and replacing it with civil unions for gays and straights alike

there should be no mention of marriage in the constitution. its a states issue not a federal one.

there should be no mention of marriage in the constitution. its a states issue not a federal one.
why not get rid of the issue all together?

That might cure the skawking about gay marraige destroying the sanctity of marraige. Of course, it'd give 'em something else to skawk about.

I don't think restricting peoples freedom like that would be a popular move...ignoring the fact that such legislation would have absolutely no chance of passing anyway.

why not get rid of the issue all together?

Because the Constitution doesn't define marriage now. It does define that we are free to be happy, prosperous and free to do as we choose. That is it, the constitution should not dictate what the states do, we are after all called the United States of America, not the United Federal government of America. Let the states decide the issue and then choose which state better serves your own values and morals.

How about we jsut get rid of the concept of a civil union and allow marriage for all?

Does anyone know how that issue is fairing through parliment in Canada, anyways? Last I heard, they were going to vote on it.

How about we jsut get rid of the concept of a civil union and allow marriage for all?

Does anyone know how that issue is fairing through parliment in Canada, anyways? Last I heard, they were going to vote on it.

Lets force everyone to get married. You put a number into a government lottery at the age of 18 and you are matched to the person who chose the same number and then you are forced to marry at gun point before being drafted into the USA army to go fight a war against Osama Bin Laden hiding in his secret moon base.

don't ban it, just open it up to everybody.

Lets force everyone to get married. You put a number into a government lottery at the age of 18 and you are matched to the person who chose the same number and then you are forced to marry at gun point before being drafted into the USA army to go fight a war against Osama Bin Laden hiding in his secret moon base.
Yes, because that somehow relates to what I said...

:rolleyes:

Because the Constitution doesn't define marriage now. It does define that we are free to be happy, prosperous and free to do as we choose. That is it, the constitution should not dictate what the states do, we are after all called the United States of America, not the United Federal government of America. Let the states decide the issue and then choose which state better serves your own values and morals.
and people in china live in the peoples republic of china! and lets not forget the democratic republic of Congo!

A constitutional ammendment banning marriage and replacing it with civil unions for gays and straights alike

So long is it was simply a legal name change and churches were still allowed their own concept of marriage - no problem. Who cares what you call it.

So long is it was simply a legal name change and churches were still allowed their own concept of marriage - no problem. Who cares what you call it.
churches can do whatever they want. having tax money going towards one group of people and not another based on sexual orientation is another thing

don't ban it, just open it up to everybody.
we tried that but it was immediatly put down by homophobes

there should be no mention of marriage in the constitution. its a states issue not a federal one.

Yeah? Why? Just because gays getting married wasn't an issue then doesn't mean it isn't now. That's why we're allowed to ammend the constitution.

I don't think restricting peoples freedom like that would be a popular move...ignoring the fact that such legislation would have absolutely no chance of passing anyway.

The banning marriage part (I assume this means that you would never be able to be married in a church) would probably be dropped anyway. If, in the eyes of the government, there was no longer 'marriage' but 'civil union' given by a judge then there'd be no problem. Except perhaps people complaining that their marriage (they would stress the word when ever they say it) is the same kind that gays are receiving. They would not be able to find the words to express why this is bad, ever, but this would be an unimaginably huge issue for many people.

Yeah? Why? Just because gays getting married wasn't an issue then doesn't mean it isn't now. That's why we're allowed to ammend the constitution.



The banning marriage part (I assume this means that you would never be able to be married in a church) would probably be dropped anyway. If, in the eyes of the government, there was no longer 'marriage' but 'civil union' given by a judge then there'd be no problem. Except perhaps people complaining that their marriage (they would stress the word when ever they say it) is the same kind that gays are receiving. They would not be able to find the words to express why this is bad, ever, but this would be an unimaginably huge issue for many people.
im talking about marriage as it affects laws and tax payer money (and yes it does)

Soon as everyone picks up a history book and realizes that marriage was a civil issue long before it was a religious institution, then all will be well with the world once again.

Soon as everyone picks up a history book and realizes that marriage was a civil issue long before it was a religious institution, then all will be well with the world once again.
as soon as you realize the majority of americans are homophobes and gay marriage isnt going to be legalized any time soon......well the world wont change...

If people really want to make the claim that marriage is a religious institution, then the government should have no place in it. It's sort of ridiculous that people get so worked up about marriage when most marriages (by simple majority) end in divorce anyway.

its not ridiculous to get worked up when tax payers money is given to a group which specifically excludes homosexuals

as soon as you realize the majority of americans are homophobes and gay marriage isnt going to be legalized any time soon......well the world wont change...

Actually, that's not true, and it is becoming legal in some states. It's when the bubbas realize they're in the minority and should all get on boats and go invade France.

The world changes all the time. Usually for the better.

Banning marriage is pointless, I'd much rather see marriages and civil unions available to hetero and homosexual couples, with equal rights across the board... People can choose which they want.