Gay Marriage...Explain what is going on

[Nevarwinter]

Okay, I have to admit it, I only barely keep up with the gay marriage thing. My personal opinions of it are non-existent until I see someone trying to exploit political gain out of it.

What is the issue?
Is it the civil-union vs. marriage thing?

I really am lost. Please try to be as unbiased as possible when explaining. This means you too, lefties. Obama and Biden are against it, so shaddap u mowf if you try to make this political.

Thanks.

[ThrowCop]

Gays want to get married like other couples.


Some people don't like that idea for various reasons.


All the rest is a political minefield.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'll add to ThrowCop's fine answer

If all the states constructed 'civil unions' which other states had to recognize, and which provided all of the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I think a large percentage of homosexuals would be content.


Actually, what we could do is call what happened in the church "marriage" and call the legally binding contract (currently the "marriage certificate") the civil union certificate.
That way, every couple can consent to entering into a civil union, and could also choose to have a marriage ceremony performed by a religious entity.

[ThrowCop]

...

Actually, what we could do is call what happened in the church "marriage" and call the legally binding contract (currently the "marriage certificate") the civil union certificate.
That way, every couple can consent to entering into a civil union, and could also choose to have a marriage ceremony performed by a religious entity.That is pretty much my take on it.

Government should not prevent consenting adults from signing a contract that involves legal behavior.


Marriage is sacred. Government is not. Leave it to the Church.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Okay, I have to admit it, I only barely keep up with the gay marriage thing. My personal opinions of it are non-existent until I see someone trying to exploit political gain out of it.

What is the issue?
Is it the civil-union vs. marriage thing?

I really am lost. Please try to be as unbiased as possible when explaining. This means you too, lefties. Obama and Biden are against it, so shaddap u mowf if you try to make this political.

Thanks.

I can only speak for my own state. The final ruling came down yesterday out of California Supreme Court...which totally didn't make a lick of sense.

On one side, the ban on same sex marriage is to be upheld as per the voters last November. On the other side...the 18 thousand or so same sexed couples that were able to marry in a 3 and 1/2 month window will also remain married and recognized by the state as married couples. You can see the inherent issues that follow this decsion right?

Either you can or can't marry who you wish in California. You can't have one small group who got 'special privileges' due to a loop hole in the law prior to the vote in November...then close said loop hole after the fact. Equality becomes the next large legal battle here...I mean...18 thousand couples are legally recognized as married..how does the state then equalize that with 'voter' approved or disapproved ban on said marriages? Answer is..it can't. Its all or nothing as it pertains to the law. Yesterdays' legal ruling was a flim flam game...trying to appease both sides.

Our esteemed Govenator did make a statment that he thought eventually either voters or our courts would make marriage available/equal to all consenting adults in California who wish to participate within it. Sounds like a prologue to a story that is already written doesn't it? :wall:

Why is government involved at all in marriage? I mean really? If you work..they get their damn taxes...we don't need 'marriage to have tax base pay from the society your dictating over. Through mutual consent, adults should be able to claim their own status...religious ceremoney or not..and tell their government if they are single or married. They don't need to have a foot in the game...if you know what I mean. :whistle:

Of course, you've got your religious right that is certain if gay marriage is allowed, we are all going to hell in a hand basket. Heck, I can pick out several other topics that show we are already gong to hell in said hand basket without touching the topic of marriage. :doh: Same can be said for the ubber liberal left....they are certain gay marriage is a step closer to the beloved ideal of Utopia...which is a fantasy in and of itself. Me...I could care less if gay marriage was voter approved or not. What should be looked at is equal rights to all citizens of this nation...not a select group who fit a 1950's ideal at what once was...instead of what presently is. ;)

Old parenting adage applies to this...what you do for one...you must do for all. Keeps it simple I think. :whistle:

~Mysty

[slick_trip]

I'll add to ThrowCop's fine answer

If all the states constructed 'civil unions' which other states had to recognize, and which provided all of the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I think a large percentage of homosexuals would be content.


Actually, what we could do is call what happened in the church "marriage" and call the legally binding contract (currently the "marriage certificate") the civil union certificate.
That way, every couple can consent to entering into a civil union, and could also choose to have a marriage ceremony performed by a religious entity.

i agree with this position. what i think would be the ironic outcome should this situation be in play....

this would increase gay marriage as the individual church can recognize whatever union they want regardless of gov't support. you'll see gay friendly churches providing ceremonies at the same rate as 'opposite' marriage ceremonies.

in the end, though, the only gov't involvement should be around guidelines and regulations pertaining to the contractual aspect of a civil union. anything other than that does not fall within equal application concepts we hold near and dear.

[Nevarwinter]

So...

"Civil Unions" need to be the same as a "Marriage" legally. That's it?

I keep reading stuff about marriage being between a man and a woman. So what this leads me to believe is that there are some who are truly out for civil unions, but some that have latched on to the cause want to drive another stake into the heart of Christianity.

Am I assuming that correctly?

[snagswolf]

One thing to keep in mind when discussing gay marriage, is that there is no 'ban' on gay marriage. In America, anyone is free to find a minister and exchange vows with anyone else, and to be 'married' (providing they're not breaking any other laws, like child abuse).

What is really being discussed is society's sanction of those marriages, including all the legal rights that go along with it.

If you remember that, you'll see through a lot of the B.S. that's being thrown around.

[Marleysdaddy]

So...

"Civil Unions" need to be the same as a "Marriage" legally. That's it?
Yeah...I think "Marriage" should be the religious commitment. And if a given church chooses to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, that is their choice. The legal, civic, and economic benefits we citizens can receive by entering into a union with one other person should be available to all consenting hetero and homosexuals in all 50 states.
I keep reading stuff about marriage being between a man and a woman. So what this leads me to believe is that there are some who are truly out for civil unions, but some that have latched on to the cause want to drive another stake into the heart of Christianity.

Am I assuming that correctly?

I think so...but I think the group that is truly out for civil unions vastly outnumbers the anti-Christian group

[PuckHappy]

Prop 8 had nothing what so ever to do with gay marriage. It was a constitutional amendment to define that marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
NOT one man and six women, not three women, not three men and one woman, not a man and man or woman and woman.
Just ONE man and ONE woman.

IF this constitutional amendment did in fact violate the rights of anyone then the Attorney General Jerry Brown should have caught it BEFORE it went to the people for a vote.
Oh that's right HE DID rewrite it before it went to the people. And they still voted for it to pass. And then SIX judges voted that it was all done fair and square.

I do have to wonder, will the gays support polygamy?

[Claymore]

I'm waiting for the first 'spousal rape' trial from a gay-marraige.
It should be interesting.

[dittoheadAZ]

Okay, I have to admit it, I only barely keep up with the gay marriage thing. My personal opinions of it are non-existent until I see someone trying to exploit political gain out of it.

What is the issue?
Is it the civil-union vs. marriage thing?

I really am lost. Please try to be as unbiased as possible when explaining. This means you too, lefties. Obama and Biden are against it, so shaddap u mowf if you try to make this political.

Thanks.

"Civil unions" are fine. They exist for man-woman, man-woman-woman, man-man-woman, etc.; so why not man-man or woman-woman?

But "marriage" is a defined term, which includes one (and only one) man and one (and only one) woman. There are other qualifications which make it different than a mere "civil union".

It's as simple as that, although many folks yell and scream anyway.

[WorldWatcher]

"Civil unions" are fine. They exist for man-woman, man-woman-woman, man-man-woman, etc.; so why not man-man or woman-woman?


Actually not as the some states also bar same-sex couples from Civil Unions.


But "marriage" is a defined term, which includes one (and only one) man and one (and only one) woman. There are other qualifications which make it different than a mere "civil union".


Not really as there are many places where the definition of Civil Marriage includes two consenting, law abiding, adults. Such as CA, IA, NH, CT, and VT.

So there is not "one" definition.

In other countries the definition can include multiple spouses.

So again there is not "one" definition.

Now it may differ from **your** definition, true.


It's as simple as that, although many folks yell and scream anyway.


Incorrect.

Here is the Vermont Law as an example...


Sec. 5. 15 V.S.A. § 8 is amended to read:

§ 8. MARRIAGE DEFINITION

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. When used in this chapter or in any other statute, the word “marriage” shall mean a civil marriage. Terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships shall be construed consistently with this section for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law.


>>>>

[dittoheadAZ]

Actually not as the some states also bar same-sex couples from Civil Unions.





Not really as there are many places where the definition of Civil Marriage includes two consenting, law abiding, adults. Such as CA, IA, NH, CT, and VT.

So there is not "one" definition.

In other countries the definition can include multiple spouses.

So again there is not "one" definition.

Now it may differ from **your** definition, true.





Incorrect.

Here is the Vermont Law as an example...


Sec. 5. 15 V.S.A. § 8 is amended to read:

§ 8. MARRIAGE DEFINITION

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. When used in this chapter or in any other statute, the word “marriage” shall mean a civil marriage. Terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships shall be construed consistently with this section for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law.


>>>>

On all but the last, you have a point. On the last, it doesn't matter, because Vermont doesn't have the power to alter reality, no matter how many laws they pass. Just like Illinois couldn't redefine pi to be 3, no matter how hard they tried.

[WorldWatcher]

On all but the last, you have a point. On the last, it doesn't matter, because Vermont doesn't have the power to alter reality, no matter how many laws they pass. Just like Illinois couldn't redefine pi to be 3, no matter how hard they tried.


OK, let me get this straight. You say marriage has only one definition. I show you a law from one of the 50 states where the legal definition does not match your statement. And your response is that the law doesn't alter reality?



Wow - one of us is understands what reality is and one doesn't. Feel free to consider it to be me.



































:)) :)) :))


>>>>

[terri910]

So...

"Civil Unions" need to be the same as a "Marriage" legally. That's it?

I keep reading stuff about marriage being between a man and a woman. So what this leads me to believe is that there are some who are truly out for civil unions, but some that have latched on to the cause want to drive another stake into the heart of Christianity.

Am I assuming that correctly?
That summary wouldn't be my version. But I suspect there are a lot of different viewpoints and agendas regarding this issue. Perhaps not quite as many as there are people. ;)

"Driving another stake into the heart of Christianity" wouldn't be at the top of the list from the discussions I've had, but it isn't like I've talked to millions of people! To get an idea of the opinions and viewpoints of some people on this issue, you could read this thread:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1477111

(just remember, if you decide to join in, that there is a "special rule" for the Religion Forum -- read the sticky at the top of the Forum page before posting!)

[Rorus Raz]

The goal is get it legalized in all fifty states. Then, straight marriage becomes illegal.

[Chucky]

I'll add to ThrowCop's fine answer

If all the states constructed 'civil unions' which other states had to recognize, and which provided all of the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I think a large percentage of homosexuals would be content.

Actually, what we could do is call what happened in the church "marriage" and call the legally binding contract (currently the "marriage certificate") the civil union certificate.

That way, every couple can consent to entering into a civil union, and could also choose to have a marriage ceremony performed by a religious entity.
It would be interesting to see how many folks (of any persuasion) would get married if there were no legal/monetary/tax/child-custody benefits. (another reason to do away with income taxes...)

Fewer people are getting married to begin with, especially since living together has lost much of its stigmatism. And yet 50% of marriages still end in divorce, regardless of the couples' religious beliefs. In fact, as an institution, it seems "marriage" is becoming more meaningless by the minute. No one "stays together for the kids' sakes". The #1 reason cited for divorces is money. The "tribal" pressure to stay together and work through tough times is basically gone. In this mobile society, people just leave whatever social/religious groups they're in and "move on".

[LoneStarHero]

What is the advantage of being "married" over being in a "civil union"?

Can folks in a "civil union" adopt children with the same amount of difficulty as a married couple?

Is the dissolving of a "civil union" the same as a divorce and all the legal baggage that comes with it?

Are the tax benefits/penalties the same?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they are the same legal/contract/family wise, the whole battle just seems to be a naming issue.

Is there something I am just failing miserably to grasp?

If marriage has no legal meaning and is strictly a sacred religious thing, why go to the government to define it? My opinion is that the government cannot mandate how a particular word is used in society. The idea that the government can dictate our language and words is ludicrous. If "civil unions" and marriages are equal in a contract/legal sense, there should be no reason for rigid definitions.

I do not see why this issue has both sides frothing at the mouth, unless of course "civil unions" are indeed inferior to marriage in legal standing.