One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

[soberups]

As gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, the gay divorce rate will not stabilize for a long time. Gay couples can only now access the streamlined legal processes that marriage and divorce provides.

We are heading down a slippery slope when the government can grant or deny marriage licenses based upon statistical probabilities of whether or not that marriage might end in a divorce.

Taking that logic to its ultimate conclusion, we should then also deny marriage licenses to interracial couples....or couples whose families are of different religions...or couples with partners who have significant differences in terms of age or education or social status.

Sorry, but I dont want my government having that kind of power over personal decisions.

 

[trplnkl]

What a complete and total load of crap.

Gay couples want the same thing that straight couples want...the rights and benefits of marriage. Those who claim otherwise are simply homophobic bigots.

I believe that many do want the same rights and benefits as straight couples and those who do deserve that. However I also believe there is some validity to what Baba posted (The gay idea of marriage has less to do with fidelity, and more to do with social legitimization. And *because* it has less to do with fidelity, sanctioning gay marriage results in the degradation of marriage, because gay marriage won't emphasize the most important parts of marriage - fidelity and a healthy, consistent environment for childhood development.)

I wouldn't know how to come up with any proof or statistics on the stability of gay relationships. Over the years I have known many gay people, both men and women and for the most part mostly women, I have yet to encounter, on a social status, a male couple of long standing, the men seemed to be "dating" or looking for the next party. I do have to admit that the social stigma in this area may have well kept most of the gay men out of public view.
Within the female couples I have known, maybe 1% were of a long term committed relationship (most lasted less than a year) . One thing I did notice and watched for several years was that when a lesbian couple would break up they remained friends and continued to hang out with their past mates and their new mates, giving a revolving door appearance.
I understand and respect your opinion on the government having a part in deciding who can and can't be married. However without some kind of control and some kind of standard, the organizations that administer the benefits that gays seek the rights to will grant no rights to anyone. I believe there are ways to acquire the rights and benefits that they seek without being married. Civil unions could resolve the rights/benefits situation and could also address the responsibilities that go along. Why is the idea of civil unions NOT acceptable to the gay community?

BTW your "homophobic bigots" card is worn and frayed, put it back in your pocket.

 

[klein]

Civil unions could resolve the rights/benefits situation and could also address the responsibilities that go along. Why is the idea of civil unions NOT acceptable to the gay community?

Now why should that be acceptable ?
I hear over and over, how "free" America is, and by all means so do the Gay's & Lesbians.
Most of Europe and Canada , probably Australia/NZ, too, allow same sex marriages.

I can see not just a binding role for them to get married, but also a very important (to them), political rights, that they keep pushing to archieve.

Everyone should know, that when this ruling takes place in the Supreme Court, it will rule in favour of same sex marriages.
Like it or not, that's the "cost" of living in a free society, and what every American is so proud to have.

 

[moreluck]

I think it all goes back to "be fruitful and multiply". The gay couples can have all the rights that go along with marriage....just not the name. They can call it "fusion" if they want.
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to witness the fusion of Stanley & Maurice......."

 

[klein]

I think it all goes back to "be fruitful and multiply".

I couldn't pass this one up !

They are "fruits" already, so the term fruitful, supports the marriage.
Well, while multiply, that can be either way taken, but by no means does every married couple have kids, or some can't even have kids.

 

[trplnkl]

Now why should that be acceptable ?
I hear over and over, how "free" America is, and by all means so do the Gay's & Lesbians.
Most of Europe and Canada , probably Australia/NZ, too, allow same sex marriages.

I can see not just a binding role for them to get married, but also a very important (to them), political rights, that they keep pushing to archieve.

Everyone should know, that when this ruling takes place in the Supreme Court, it will rule in favour of same sex marriages.
Like it or not, that's the "cost" of living in a free society, and what every American is so proud to have.

Well you just wasted time and web space to ramble around a fair question. Your opening question does not answer my question. It matters not, to me, how gay marriages are handled any where else in the world, we aren't talking about " Most of Europe and Canada , probably Australia/NZ", we are talking about the USA.
I'm just looking for a solution that will allow people to have the rights, benefits and responsibilities they deserve.
I still would like to know what is so objectionable to the civil union idea.

 

[trplnkl]

I couldn't pass this one up !

They are "fruits" already, so the term fruitful, supports the marriage.
Well, while multiply, that can be either way taken, but by no means does every married couple have kids, or some can't even have kids.

Ya shoulda passed it up. pitiful, just pitiful

 

[klein]

I still would like to know what is so objectionable to the civil union idea.

First of all that would make them 2nd class citizens, or make them feel that way anyways.
Secondly, could you imagine filling out applications and other documents, that have "civil union" as an answer next to single, married , seperated, commenlaw ?

The jobmarket is tough as it is, but marking down "civil union" in a job application, probably won't help someone get a job (esspecially in smaller firms).

 

[Babagounj]

This whole issue is quite pointless.
Given that most of our elected reps. are lawyers, who pass laws that benefit lawyers. Think about it.
Who is most likely to make money from civil unions / marriage ?
With the government involvement , forms and permits are now required , thus involving legal actions. And should these unions fail, who is required to legally again fill out forms and seek a court approved judgment ?
As always it's about making $$$.

 

[moreluck]

First of all that would make them 2nd class citizens, or make them feel that way anyways.
Secondly, could you imagine filling out applications and other documents, that have "civil union" as an answer next to single, married , seperated, commenlaw ?

The jobmarket is tough as it is, but marking down "civil union" in a job application, probably won't help someone get a job (esspecially in smaller firms).

So, if I want my cat licensed....does it feel like a 2nd class pet because mostly it's dogs that are licensed??

 

[moreluck]

The jobmarket is tough as it is, but marking down "civil union" in a job application, probably won't help someone get a job (esspecially in smaller firms).

Marking down 'civil union' would be a heck of a lot easier than filling in "reason for leaving your last job" portion.

 

[klein]

Marking down 'civil union' would be a heck of a lot easier than filling in "reason for leaving your last job" portion.

I have no problem with that one. I'll be 100% honest about it. Did my job, finished my job, it was Friday, again, no lunch break, and took it after work.
That's how committed I am to get the job done for the day. Simple as that.

 

[moreluck]

"committed", yep, that's the word !!

 

[over9five]

Everyone should know, that when this ruling takes place in the Supreme Court, it will rule in favour of same sex marriages.
Like it or not, that's the "cost" of living in a free society, and what every American is so proud to have.

We have a winnah.

 

[trplnkl]

First of all that would make them 2nd class citizens, or make them feel that way anyways.
Secondly, could you imagine filling out applications and other documents, that have "civil union" as an answer next to single, married , seperated, commenlaw ?

The jobmarket is tough as it is, but marking down "civil union" in a job application, probably won't help someone get a job (esspecially in smaller firms).

How would it make them 2nd class citizens or make them feel that way? IMO, civil union would look pretty much the same as married and better than common law. At least with the civil union, there has been a commitment made.

 

[tieguy]

I have no problem with that one. I'll be 100% honest about it. Did my job, finished my job, it was Friday, again, no lunch break, and took it after work.
That's how committed I am to get the job done for the day. Simple as that.

drinking on the job shows committment?

 

[bbsam]

drinking on the job shows committment?

Yes. To drinking.

 

[wkmac]

Yes. To drinking.

Even UPS is committed to drinking because during the summer months they are all the time telling us to remain hydrated!

 

[soberups]

How would it make them 2nd class citizens or make them feel that way? IMO, civil union would look pretty much the same as married and better than common law. At least with the civil union, there has been a commitment made.

My sister is gay. She and her spouse could quite frankly care less whether their relationship is labeled by others as a "marriage" or a "civil union". What matters to them is the fact that they cannot take advantage of the Federal tax rate available to legally married couples, nor are they eligible to benefit from each others Social Security even though they are paying the same amount into the system. And these benefits are arbitrarily denied to them solely due to the fact that neither of them owns a penis. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

What needs to happen is that civil unions should be granted the same financial benefits as marriages. Then whatever name you decide to attach to that relationship becomes irrelevant.

 

[DS]

we aren't talking about " Most of Europe and Canada , probably Australia/NZ", we are talking about the USA.

The USA should wake up and recognize that even a homosexual marriage is a simple contract between two people.Two honest tax paying members of society that should have the same rights as everyone that is "normal".The cost of a marriage licence is pure profit to the government.Whats the problem?