 
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/12/06 - 17:10 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
So why change "marriage"? Why not create something different? A "contractual civil union" or whatever and let that process create the property rights, living will rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights and/or whatever else is important to a gay couple? In the last election, if I remember right, 11 states voted down gay marriage amendments, so why not realize this approach is not going to work?
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 17:20 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
So why change "marriage"? Why not create something different? A "contractual civil union" or whatever and let that process create the property rights, living will rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights and/or whatever else is important to a gay couple? In the last election, if I remember right, 11 states voted down gay marriage amendments, so why not realize this approach is not going to work? |
So would you be okay with gay marriage as long as they called it a civil union? That is, create civil unions that have the exact same benefits/restrictions/penalties/legal aspects as marriage? You would be okay with that?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 17:27 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
So why change "marriage"? Why not create something different? A "contractual civil union" or whatever and let that process create the property rights, living will rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights and/or whatever else is important to a gay couple? In the last election, if I remember right, 11 states voted down gay marriage amendments, so why not realize this approach is not going to work? |
So would you be okay with gay marriage as long as they called it a civil union? That is, create civil unions that have the exact same benefits/restrictions/penalties/legal aspects as marriage? You would be okay with that? |
Just about. Don't call it marriage and it certainly wouldn't be 'exactly' the same. If there was a boiler-plate contractual agreement where two people of the same sex agreed to be each others heir, living will executor, funeral arranger or whatever list of rights are agreed to, then yep, I'm for that legislation. 
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 17:32 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
So why change "marriage"? Why not create something different? A "contractual civil union" or whatever and let that process create the property rights, living will rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights and/or whatever else is important to a gay couple? In the last election, if I remember right, 11 states voted down gay marriage amendments, so why not realize this approach is not going to work? |
So would you be okay with gay marriage as long as they called it a civil union? That is, create civil unions that have the exact same benefits/restrictions/penalties/legal aspects as marriage? You would be okay with that? |
Just about. Don't call it marriage and it certainly wouldn't be 'exactly' the same. If there was a boiler-plate contractual agreement where two people of the same sex agreed to be each others heir, living will executor, funeral arranger or whatever list of rights are agreed to, then yep, I'm for that legislation. |
A rose by another other name would smell as sweet. 
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 17:48 Post subject:
Actually, Jrjo has a point. If you look at it from the protestor's POV, it might be a logical step to take in their battle for marital rights.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 18:01 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
So why change "marriage"? Why not create something different? A "contractual civil union" or whatever and let that process create the property rights, living will rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights and/or whatever else is important to a gay couple? In the last election, if I remember right, 11 states voted down gay marriage amendments, so why not realize this approach is not going to work? |
Separate but equal?
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 18:08 Post subject:
At the risk of insulting our sensibilities, France has a "domestic partnership" law that is quite unique. Instead of just covering "gay marriage" it allows ANYONE (even family members such as brothers and sisters) to enter into a partnership. Thus giving them full rights and privileges for health care, inheritance etc etc.
Interestingly, prior to the enactment of this law, attempts were made to legalize "gay marriage" but it was voted down. However, when the issue was resurrected it was decided to give EVEYONE the opportunity to enter into domestic relationships. It passed.
Just another view, take it for what its worth.
Last edited by andydp on 06/13/06 - 14:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 18:35 Post subject: Re: Keeping on topic
Please let me say this politely. I had my fingers slapped for going "off topic" in the other thread. I created this one to find out just what it is about gay marriage that gets some straight people so riled up. I have not had a response that even remotely says how straight marriages would suffer if homosexuals were allowed to marry.
Once more, with feeling:
| keltic63 wrote: | | How does same sex marriage detract, lessen, void, impose upon, or otherwise negate, straight marriage? |
there is one other thing that we are forgetting: The religious rites that most recognize as "marriage" in this country are not the legally binding glue that holds 2 people together. A minister would not have to say a word for a couple to be legally married. All that is required is the minister's signature on the marriage license. What the gov't recognizes as marriage is not the religious ceremony, or even the secular ceremony. It is the legal contract signed by all the parties involved, including the minister (or judge, or JP, etc.) Some ministers are taking a stand, and refusing to sign the marriage license. They are refusing to act as agents of the state. They still perform the religious ceremony, but require the couple to have the marriage license signed by someone else. all this is to say that the religious ceremony and the legally recognized covenant are 2 different things.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/06 - 10:05 Post subject:
If my marriage would be affected adversely by gay couples getting married..
then I would have to wonder about that marriage.
Funny.
Brittany Spears and some other heterosexual marriages that last less than a month don't seem to affect other people's marriages.
Neither do those where people marry for money or convenience.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/06 - 23:32 Post subject: Re: Keeping on topic
yeah, i'm remote 
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/20/06 - 21:48 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban. |
seems to me they need to define "man" and "woman"....not always clear in some cases
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/06 - 18:15 Post subject:
I really don't have a problem with defining "marriage" as between a man and woman, provided domestic partnerships/civil unions enjoy the same civil rights as "married" persons. If by defining marriage as between a man and woman, conservatives are willing to grant full civil rights to same sex unions under a different name, I'm comfortable with that.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/06 - 18:19 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I really don't have a problem with defining "marriage" as between a man and woman, provided domestic partnerships/civil unions enjoy the same civil rights as "married" persons. If by defining marriage as between a man and woman, conservatives are willing to grant full civil rights to same sex unions under a different name, I'm comfortable with that. |
 I too would support it. I don't think is correct, but I think it is a good positive step to equality. And I think it would become the same thing as marriage (even by name) through dialect. People aren't going to say, come to our civil unionizing! They will probably say wedding. They will say that they are getting married, not performing a civil union ceremony. Once this occurs, I think officially calling it marriage wouldn't lag far behind.
|
|
|
|
|
karlene
Canadian Bacon
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 5563
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/06 - 18:43 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I really don't have a problem with defining "marriage" as between a man and woman, provided domestic partnerships/civil unions enjoy the same civil rights as "married" persons. If by defining marriage as between a man and woman, conservatives are willing to grant full civil rights to same sex unions under a different name, I'm comfortable with that. |
I too would support it. I don't think is correct, but I think it is a good positive step to equality. And I think it would become the same thing as marriage (even by name) through dialect. People aren't going to say, come to our civil unionizing! They will probably say wedding. They will say that they are getting married, not performing a civil union ceremony. Once this occurs, I think officially calling it marriage wouldn't lag far behind. |
this is a very good point and i think you are right.
I personally think it will and should become the norm for 'people' to get married. I could care less what gender they are...
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/06 - 21:52 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | If by defining marriage as between a man and woman, conservatives are willing to grant full civil rights to same sex unions under a different name, I'm comfortable with that. |
But will they? Do you think that those who are opopsed to same sex marriage would want to grant full civil rights to homosexual couples? It seems that those would would go the length to pass an amendment against gay marriage are really interested in full civil rights for all couples.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
