[subego]

Okay, I bated you a bit with the thread title. To eliminate the part of the argument that centers on the diminishing of the concept of "marriage", I'm really asking about "civil unions".

How do you consider this issue in the long term?

I mean, if you take an issue like abortion, which is in a permanently nebulous area vis-a-vis one person's rights (the mother) infringing on another (the foetus), I can see one declaring that they are willing to stick up for their ideals to the end of time, and make sure that future generations hold their same values.

I don't see the whole civil union thing as having equal stakes on both sides like abortion does. The "gays" are having their personal civil rights stepped on, and thus have a personal stake in seeing the issue resolved in a certain way. As far as I understand those who are against it (which I may not), the issue centers on the collective damage this would do to society.

So my point is, unlike the equality of the stakes in the abortion issue, which dooms abortion to be a bone of contention between people forever, there's a lopsidedness to the civil union issue in that its supporters are pursuing their personal interest, where as its detractors are not.

So, what is your long-term strategy here? People who are pursuing their personal interests usually win out, if only for the amount of time they are willing to dedicate to their cause.

Let's say civil unions are made law, and in 20 years nothing has really come of it, or at the very least, a lot less comes of it than you imagined, would you just drop it? Would you feel bad for having pursued it in the first place?

[probablecause]

I'm generally very conservative but I don't have a problem with gay marriage/civil union and I think that it's slowly going to be adopted state by state. I will make a wild prediction here and say that I believe that given time, the Republican party will stop its anti gay movement or tone it down. They would be foolish not too, because I've met a number of gay men and women who vote for democrats because of this issue alone. Every other issue they stand for is a Republican viewpoint.

When the Republican party figures this out and changes its stance, there will be a lot of gays who join the party and you know what? It will be a more honest acceptance than a lot of democratic politicians who manipulate you into believing they support you then shoot you in the back in a political sense.

[Kevin]

I would say most people are for gays getting equal rights.

[subego]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I'm generally very conservative but I don't have a problem with gay marriage/civil union

I've never been able to understand how a real conservative could be against it. Same with abortion. Keeping government out of morality judgments is a pillar of conservatism as I know it. Isn't this the conservative argument for moderation in the government's redistribution of wealth?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. What passes for "conservative" these days is really some creepy authoritarian socialism.

Their fold, spindle, mutilate routine on the Bill of Rights is the kind of thing I would expect a dyed in the (red) wool Communist to promote.

"The State has a duty and is the best instrument to keep the proletariat safe from ideological danger."

Ewww.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say most people are for gays getting equal rights.

Pity they don't have them.

[Edit: to broaden the question, what's the hold up?]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've said it once and I'll say it again. What passes for "conservative" these days is really some creepy authoritarian socialism.

Concur. Same happening here with our "conservatives".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say most people are for gays getting equal rights.

Unfortunately, many of them have a very inequitable idea of what "equal" is.

[aristotles]

Civil unions are fine. Governments can create new institutions. Marriage, on the other hand is a central construct of human civilization since the beginning. It serves an important purpose and it is universally recognized around the world.

Here is a hard fact that some of you may have a hard time accepting. Gay "marriage" will never have acceptance outside of a handful of nations. Unless you are suggesting some form of dictatorship and cultural imperialism, most of human society will never accept it.

Calling gay marriage "marriage" is a delusion. To call it civil union would be honest since it would reflect that a civil authority in one nation/state decided to create such a thing with the understanding that no other jurisdiction would be under any obligation to recognize such an arrangement.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Unfortunately, many of them have a very inequitable idea of what "equal" is.

I agree.

Equal things deserve equal treatment.

Do the two following scenarios have the same "equal" societal importance?

A. Two people love each other and decide to have a long-term relationship. As part of this, they find themselves bringing a new life into the world

B. Two people love each other and decide to have a long-term relationship. There is ZERO chance that their long-term relationship will result in their finding themselves bringing a new life into the world.

If for some reason we decided to legally forbid (instead of it just being part of nature) A. or B. from procreating (assuming the two parties involved could procreate), it would be said that we are treating them unequally because there are benefits and societal concerns that the act of procreating provides couples. If by virtue of the very nature of the unions in question this same "prohibition" is in effect naturally, then it's logical to claim that the two unions are NOT equal and therefore have no unalienable right to be treated as such.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with people wishing to make contractual obligations to each other in ways that makes life easier for them. I've given the example before of two older unmarried platonic friends who have no immediate family. They should be able to legally join their assets/rights in ways that blood relatives and married people already have. I think that's why there isn't any big opposition to things like "civil unions".

[SirCastor]

I'm not terribly sure how I feel about this. Marriage to me is an institution that has holy roots, but in the US, as well as very many other nations, it's taken on many many civil tones and associations. Unless I misunderstand, marriage to many gay people is about receiving the civil benefits of being married. Tax breaks, heath benefits, etc. So from my point of view this is abuse of the very idea of marriage.

"Civil Unions" aren't marriage. If you're getting together to get the civil benefits that come 'unionizing' then I don't care much. I guess what I'm saying is don't bastardize something that's sacred to me so you get an extra $20 on your tax refund.

On the other hand, I can see it becoming the fashonable new way to pretend you're married. It's the next "we live together".

FWIW, I don't think divorce should be as easy as it is. And often I don't think Marriage should be as easy as it is. You definitely shouldn't be able to get married if you're intoxicated. You shouldn't be able to drive through somewhere and get married. It's insanity. It's at that point we start to ask "Why do we even have marriage?"

I think I mentioned this in another post. Here's the progression I see:
Marriage is holy, then it's custom, then it's survival, then it's dependence, then it's social, then it's spurned, now it's questionable...

I'm sure a lot of what I've said makes no sense. But this is the political/war lounge, and I'm under no obligation to make sense to anyone.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pity they don't have them.

[Edit: to broaden the question, what's the hold up?]

Because they don't JUST want equal rights.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do the two following scenarios have the same "equal" societal importance?

Why does that even matter?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Because they don't JUST want equal rights.

Example?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Because they don't JUST want equal rights.

Exactly. The rules in the majority of jurisdictions apply equally to everyone regardless of what they are attracted to.

Two straight men or two straight women can no more marry than two gay men or women. The law is completely silent on the matter of sexuality. Both gay and straight people are equal in this sense before the law quite simply because the law does not care.

Marriage never had anything explicitly to do with sexuality. There is no such thing as gay or hetero marriage. It is plainly marriage with a specific function in our societies hierarchies.

I consider marriage to be a holy event where a man and woman make a commitment to join together and forsake all others to start a family of their own eventually.

I used words like commitment and joining, I did not once use the word love. While love may have a lot to do with who a person marries these days, that has not always been the case.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I'm sure a lot of what I've said makes no sense. But this is the political/war lounge, and I'm under no obligation to make sense to anyone.

You are correct. What you said made no sense.

You presume that people want to "unionize" only to get benefits. The concept of marriage to me is the contractual bonding of two human beings who want to solidify their love and friendship in a legal and symbolic way.

How is this not applicable to homosexuals?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are correct. What you said made no sense.

You presume that people want to "unionize" only to get benefits. The concept of marriage to me is the contractual bonding of two human beings who want to solidify their love and friendship in a legal and symbolic way.

How is this not applicable to homosexuals?

How is it applicable specifically to homosexuals? Why should the law care about sexuality?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do the two following scenarios have the same "equal" societal importance?

Can you restate this. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

How is it applicable specifically to homosexuals? Why should the law care about sexuality?

It shouldn't. Which were my point. Addressed to the ones who are against same-sex marriage.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say most people are for gays getting equal rights.

equal rights, just not marriage. i don't understand this whole marriage thing from the gay side or the straight side.

i mean, marriage is really a joke. the divorce rate (from reports i've read) is anywhere from 50% - 60% so even the so called 'moral majority' is lying to themselves.

from the gay side, two men or two women cannot really have a 'marriage' and why would they WANT to pattern themselves after a failed straight institution instead of coming up with something better.

i like the civil-union thing, if it also had tax benefits, visitation rights, healthcare bennies, etc.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It shouldn't. Which were my point. Addressed to the ones who are against same-sex marriage.

because the LAW is not just a machine. the LAW is actually done by humans, who --even though they claim to be for the best interest of ALL people-- are often lawmakers who have their own beliefs and special interests.

additionally, a lot of these lawmakers are increasingly listening to one constituency over another creating this lopsided and often controversial schism amongst americans.

it always gets me when the right accuses the courts of 'activist judges' but yet wants their own version of 'activist judges' hidden behind the facade of 'strict constitutionalist'.

it's all a big joke and we're (population that has to live with the laws these morons pass) the punchline folks.

[- - e r i k - -]

It must be time to leave work because that post made no sense to me.

Happy weekend!

[houstonmacbro]

yeah, go home.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It shouldn't. Which were my point. Addressed to the ones who are against same-sex marriage.

It does not matter. Which is my point against this silly idea about same sex marriage. I pointed out that the law applied equally to a person regardless of what they are attracted to.

Marriage has a specific purpose in society. Some people are trying to redefine that purpose in some jurisdictions to further a specific agenda.

Really, if there are some areas of inequality, fix those problems rather than trying to create something artificial.

[houstonmacbro]

and this just in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us...er.html?ref=us

it will be VERY interesting to see how this plays out. wonder what excuse and defense 'the church' will come up with to combat this? let's see they (and the religious right) will prolly rally around ole boy, drag the dude (jones) through the mud, etc. ... and make haggart (the accused) look like a saint.

i wonder if they'll use 'the alcohol' defense? ... or the 'i was abused by my childhood minister' defense ... or something even more outlandish.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

It does not matter. Which is my point against this silly idea about same sex marriage. I pointed out that the law applied equally to a person regardless of what they are attracted to.

Marriage has a specific purpose in society. Some people are trying to redefine that purpose in some jurisdictions to further a specific agenda.

Really, if there are some areas of inequality, fix those problems rather than trying to create something artificial.

You are not making sense. You seem to be arguing for equality, yet you are against same sex marriage.

Please, can you explain yourself clearer? What is your agenda?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

yeah, go home.

I did. This post is brought to you from the couch and a beer. Cheers!

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I consider marriage to be a holy event where a man and woman make a commitment to join together and forsake all others to start a family of their own eventually.

Ah yes... so of course people that are unable to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. Obviously if you can't produce offspring, you're of no use to society. Puhleeze!

I don't care if you call it marriage or civil union or whatever. Quit arguing about semantics. I think it's very telling when someone says they think it's okay as long as you don't call it marriage. By calling it a marriage, you are equating a homosexual partnership with a heterosexual partnership. And that's the real issue. Many heterosexuals that approve of gay unions still feel that their straight union is somehow superior to a gay union. Total rubbish.

In other posts I've mentioned I don't live in the U.S. The reason is because I can't...legally. My partner is not a U.S. citizen and MY government doesn't give me the right to enter into a legally recognized partnership with him... thus preventing him from immigrating to the States. Most European countries and Canada allow a person to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration. Not the U.S. A Bill was introduced recently in Congress to rectify that, but the Republicans buried it.

I get so sick of the "special rights" argument. I don't need special rights... just the same rights that my heterosexual brothers and sisters have.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Exactly. The rules in the majority of jurisdictions apply equally to everyone regardless of what they are attracted to.

Two straight men or two straight women can no more marry than two gay men or women. The law is completely silent on the matter of sexuality. Both gay and straight people are equal in this sense before the law quite simply because the law does not care.

That isn't what I am talking about. And is sorta a cop-out. Here homosexuals aren't really treated equally.

I am speaking of them just not wanting the SAME rights. But wanting definitions changed and everyone's attitude and beliefs changed.

I am all for having equal rights. I also would be all for any non-religious union being called a civil union and not a marriage.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

equal rights, just not marriage. i don't understand this whole marriage thing from the gay side or the straight side.

No most want Equal rights, and want the definition of marriage changed.

That isn't the same as just wanting equal rights.

Again most people are ALL FOR gays having the same and equal rights. Most people believe that since it's a new kind of union there should be something that differentiates between the two.

For example, we don't call homosexuality heterosexuality do we?

And since we don't, are we somehow belittling homosexuals or not giving them the same rights because we don't classify them as heterosexuals? Of course not.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No most want Equal rights, and want the definition of marriage changed.

That isn't the same as just wanting equal rights.

Yes.. your scientific analysis has proved that "most" want the definition of marriage changed. You don't know that for fact... that's an emotional statement.

Why does it bother you to call it a marriage? What is it about your definition of marriage that makes it offensive to call a homosexual union a "marriage"?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

For example, we don't call homosexuality heterosexuality do we?

And since we don't, are we somehow belittling homosexuals or not giving them the same rights because we don't classify them as heterosexuals? Of course not.

WTF? Umm... so are we belittling men for calling them men and not women? I'm afraid your arguement escapes me.

[Sky Captain]

I'm not against homosexuals getting married.
But it seems that the legislators that will grant their right to marry want to end my second admendment rights.
I'm stuck in a no win situation.
I want everyone to be happy yet I don't want my rights taken away.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Why does that even matter?

If you request equal treatment for unequal things, then it isn't a matter of "equal rights". There is no logical REQUIREMENT for unequal things to be treated equally.

Laws are implemented in order to keep control of certain societal interests. You can't argue...at least not logically, that two things that have a HUGE difference in societal interest MUST be treated equally by law. I suppose you can make an argument that there are certain societal interests (the promotion of monogamy, for instance) which makes recognition of unions between same sexes by government a reasonable request - the same as the example I gave above about platonic older life partners. Due to this, I can logically see where some middle ground, "civil unions" for example, could benefit society while still conceding the special nature that the man/woman/child building block of civilization deserves in society.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Due to this, I can logically see where some middle ground, "civil unions" for example, could benefit society while still conceding the special nature that the man/woman/child building block of civilization deserves in society.

Why does a man/woman/child building block deserve a special place in society?

Seems like people are always finding a reason to differentiate between the two, to serve their agenda.

It's two people who want to live together for the rest of their lives and take care of each other. Why can't it be left at that?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Due to this, I can logically see where some middle ground, "civil unions" for example, could benefit society while still conceding the special nature that the man/woman/child building block of civilization deserves in society.

So here we are again. Men and women that are sterile shouldn't be able to be married. Or what if a man and woman want to get married but have no plans to have children? Are they abusing the institution of marriage?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

But it seems that the legislators that will grant their right to marry want to end my second admendment rights.

Huh? Come on now... that's a pathetic argument. The slippery-slope analogy is old news.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So here we are again. Men and women that are sterile shouldn't be able to be married. Or what if a man and woman want to get married but have no plans to have children? Are they abusing the institution of marriage?

A. "Sterile" men and women have been having children since the beginning of time (mistaken diagnoses happen all the time).

B. Men and women (or even teenagers) who did not have any plans on having children, do so all the time.

C. When dealing with an "affirmative action", as is the recognition of marriage is by the government to men and women who join together in long term unions in ways that usually lead to the production of offspring, you normally only have to show that you belong to a class which would generally benefit (in this case, being in a union where male and female reproductive organs are involved). It's never (at least in the past) been required to be "means tested".

D. You can also argue that people who fall into the "class" mentioned above still act as "examples" for the rest of society as to what people who fall into that class should do - as far as how society has viewed the norm. The same isn't the case for those who fall outside the class.

[ebuddy]

The arguments for same-sex unions;

- similar tax benefits to man/woman marriage.
- visitation rights in hospitals similar to man/woman bond
- beneficiary assignments equal to those of man/woman unions
- federal recognition of this union being equal in all respects to man/woman marriage.

The arguments against same-sex unions;

- marriage benefits are not a "right" granted by government, but a "privelege" granted in the interest of maintaining optimal societal conditions.
- declining implied importance of marriage or commonly; "redefining marriage".
- slippery slope of defining "marriage" even further down to include polygamy and other less-desirable unions.
- the right to adopt and raise children under same-sex conditions.
- "conservatives"; many believe our nation is blessed particularly because of its Christian roots. This is yet another sign that times are changing and that they are losing in the battle of ideals viewing such, a society further divorcing itself from its Christian roots.

My take;

Some marriage benefits may in fact be a "privelege" not unlike tax breaks to small businesses and small business owners. This is to propogate what is viewed as a positive societal influence. However, other benefits such as visitation rights and leaving your wealth to your loved ones is a right in my view, beyond question regardless of your sexual orientation.

Redefining marriage. The definition of marriage has already been convoluted by heterosexuals to mean; a lifelong commitment of monogamy to at least two, sometimes three, four, or five people to the tune of at least half marriages ending in divorce. Pre-nups, liberally granted anullments, marrying for legal citizenship, etc... have all served to define marriage down. Those of faith (the ones you'd expect to define marriage) are arguably no more successful at it than society as a whole. Though I will say statistically, the likelihood of successful marriages does in fact increase with increased church attendance and Christian fellowship. This has led to the Christian mantra; "a family that prays together, stays together."

Polygamy and other less desirable unions; I have a hard time understanding why polygamy would not then be granted the same rights, but one could easily at least define it as two people exclusively and I'll let y'all address why polygamy would be bad. I have my own notions, but they're simply not compelling enough prohibit allowing gays the inalienable rights I've mentioned in my first statement.

The right to adopt. Would a child be happier and healthier mentally and otherwise in an orphanage than in a loving same-sex environment? I highly doubt it. I'd rather see children raised in loving homes than in an Institution. This may in fact serve to lessen the pressures on group homes, orphanages, and the like. More adoptions= better for kids.

I am personally concerned about a society that divorces itself from its (what I believe) Christian roots, but there is no reason why one's lifestyle hinders me from propogating the positive values of my faith. This gay friend of mine said the last place he'd ever go is to a Christian Church. When I asked why he said because he'd feel incredibly disliked, persecuted, and convicted for something beyond his control. I agreed this was unfortunate. Regardless of whether or not you view homosexuality as "sin", there is no one behind that Church wall without it. If you ask me, I'll quickly tell you if we all waited 'til we were sinless before going to church, no one could benefit from its most basic tenets. I believe Christians are so hung up on the bad news, they forget about the good news. I believe Jesus addressed this very notion with the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23; Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. I believe Christians too often focus on what the Bible allegedly rebukes while not realizing what it requires.

There are some facts that need to be addressed.

- homosexuality exists. You may not appreciate that, but it is so. A good friend of mine endured 8 years of counseling in an attempt to not be gay. He is gay. I don't know why and the reasons offered by both sides are woefully lacking. It's not for me to determine why nor am I qualified to even try. What I know is that homosexuality exists and as such, should have access to the same basic rights as I have as a heterosexual.

- Homosexuals are capable of monogamy, they are capable of love, they are capable of life-long commitment and I cannot find a compelling reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as I.

I say the Federal Government should probably stay out of it and leave marriage as it stands today, while somewhat ambiguous a definition, let the States decide where there is more localized and specified representation. There's no reason to force policy at a Federal level and I do not support a Federal Ban on gay marriage. "But ebuddy, some states will decide to ban gay marriage." I understand this, but I cannot make all believe as I believe. This is the way our system works. I think you'll find there are regions of our country more or less hostile to this lifestyle and at some point, we must decide where we want to be. Problems arise when views are forced upon the populace. This coercion is more oppressive at the Federal Level than at the State. It's simply a lesser of two evils.

Ultimitely, civil unions for both recognized by government and let Churches "marry" whom they view fits the definition of it according to their doctrine.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Why does a man/woman/child building block deserve a special place in society?

Seems like people are always finding a reason to differentiate between the two, to serve their agenda.

It's two people who want to live together for the rest of their lives and take care of each other. Why can't it be left at that?

It can be left at that. The request is for that desire to be sanctioned and given affirmative action by the government.

Does government have a compelling interest in the continuation of the species and the development of new members of society? I'd say so.

Does government have a compelling interest in "love"? I'd say not. At least not anywhere near what it has with the former example. There is a reason to differentiate because there are great societal interests between the two. No agenda is needed - logic prevails.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Why does a man/woman/child building block deserve a special place in society?

Seems like people are always finding a reason to differentiate between the two, to serve their agenda.

It's two people who want to live together for the rest of their lives and take care of each other. Why can't it be left at that?

Indeed! And what about polygamy? Think of that untapped undertaxed group.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Does government have a compelling interest in the continuation of the species and the development of new members of society? I'd say so.

That's where you and I will probably not come to an agreement.

I've never quite understood this line of thinking. Government keeps order and protects us, but being interested in promoting the continuation of the species seems more like a self-serving goal of the government to help perpetuate itself.

I believe that if you maintain that order and you keep us secure, the species will take care of itself.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Huh? Come on now... that's a pathetic argument. The slippery-slope analogy is old news.

Anything but old news.
The Democratic legislators that vote for gay marriage have a record of voting for gun ban legislation.

[Dork.]

Here I go, thinking about this thread and waiting until I get into work to respond, and eBuddy hits everything I wanted to say right on the head, with his excellent post! Bravo! My employer thanks you, since I can get started on my work a few minutes earlier than I planned to, because of you.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Anything but old news.
The Democratic legislators that vote for gay marriage have a record of voting for gun ban legislation.

They probably just don't want the gay masses going out holding hands and weilding loaded weapons.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Here I go, thinking about this thread and waiting until I get into work to respond, and eBuddy hits everything I wanted to say right on the head, with his excellent post! Bravo! My employer thanks you, since I can get started on my work a few minutes earlier than I planned to, because of you.

Well thank you. I do what I can to bolster the productivity of my brethren.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Anything but old news.
The Democratic legislators that vote for gay marriage have a record of voting for gun ban legislation.

But aren't they simply voting along the general party line? I see the two as correlative, not causal. I know gays that have absolutely no problem with the Second Amendment. I mean, some are lobbying to serve openly in the armed forces right?

*As an aside; I personally support a "don't ask, don't tell" policy (afterall, gays exist and should be able to serve. Unfortunately there are also those who will refuse to be quartered with them and we need their service too.)

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

They probably just don't want the gay masses going out holding hands and weilding loaded weapons.

I don't get it either.

I'm having a friend of mine compile me a list for compairison now.

[Millennium]

I still say the best approach is to go with an all-civil-union approach: strike the word 'marriage' from the law altogether, and then solemnize civil unions between any two persons, whatever their gender might be. In legal documents produced before the law is passed, the word 'marriage' shall be taken to read 'civil union' or whatever term they come up with for this.

As I see it, no one loses in this arrangement. Equal rights for all, no parallel 'separate but equal' crap, the religious terms are left to the religions, and a hole in the separation of Church and State that has existed for way too long (namely, the idea of the government solemnizing 'marriage' at all) is corrected. It is, admittedly, marginally more difficult than simply using the word 'marriage' for both, but if ensuring equal rights for all is worth doing -and I believe it is- then it's worth doing properly. This way, nobody loses anything.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

I still say the best approach is to go with an all-civil-union approach: strike the word 'marriage' from the law altogether, and then solemnize civil unions between any two persons, whatever their gender might be. In legal documents produced before the law is passed, the word 'marriage' shall be taken to read 'civil union' or whatever term they come up with for this.

As I see it, no one loses in this arrangement. Equal rights for all, no parallel 'separate but equal' crap, the religious terms are left to the religions, and a hole in the separation of Church and State that has existed for way too long (namely, the idea of the government solemnizing 'marriage' at all) is corrected. It is, admittedly, marginally more difficult than simply using the word 'marriage' for both, but if ensuring equal rights for all is worth doing -and I believe it is- then it's worth doing properly. This way, nobody loses anything.

Except the poor polygamists

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

I still say the best approach is to go with an all-civil-union approach: strike the word 'marriage' from the law altogether, and then solemnize civil unions between any two persons, whatever their gender might be. In legal documents produced before the law is passed, the word 'marriage' shall be taken to read 'civil union' or whatever term they come up with for this.

As I see it, no one loses in this arrangement. Equal rights for all, no parallel 'separate but equal' crap, the religious terms are left to the religions, and a hole in the separation of Church and State that has existed for way too long (namely, the idea of the government solemnizing 'marriage' at all) is corrected. It is, admittedly, marginally more difficult than simply using the word 'marriage' for both, but if ensuring equal rights for all is worth doing -and I believe it is- then it's worth doing properly. This way, nobody loses anything.

This is a true compromise -- and therefore, will never occur.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

As I see it, no one loses in this arrangement. Equal rights for all, no parallel 'separate but equal' crap...

As I've pointed out, we aren't dealing with a comparison of equals, and as such there is no rational comparison to the "separate but equal" provisions of the past which where used to provide different rights for equal entities. There is no logical "right" for unequal entities to be treated as equal.

You can argue that despite their lack of equality, that there's reasons why the two should be given equal status, but not based on any "equality right" that I can figure out.