What if there were a Federal Civil Union Law?

[Ian David]

Poll question: What if there were a Federal Civil Union Law?

Aside from the "Separate is not Equal" argument, major reasons for supporting full marriage rights instead of civil unions include:

1) Portability. Civil unions may not be recognized from state-to-state.

2) Federal rights and benefits would not be granted to those receiving state civil unions.

But what if there were a federal "Defense of Marriage" amendment that also established federal Civil Unions that would be recognized by the federal government and enforced from state-to-state?

Personally, I think full and equal marriage rights-- including the right to the word "marriage" is ideal. But Civil Unions have much broader support than gay marriage does.

Plus, if there were federal civil unions it would be a much bigger slap in the face to the anti-gay people. It would establish a "secular equivalent" to marriage. It would have broad popular support. And states would no longer have a choice to honor them or not.

So, the whole thing may blow-up in the faces of the anti-gay people if federally mandated civil unions were created by an amendment to the Constitution.

Depending what happens between 2006 and 2008, what do you think?

Again, this is about a FEDERAL Civil Union that would be recognized by all 50 states plus the federal government.

[davidinalameda]

1. I want all the rights and benefits of marriage

I understand what you mean with civil unions but as long as there are so many federal benefits that come with marriage, civil unions just won't cut it

[Ian David]

2. I was talking about a FEDERAL civil union that covered ALL states, too

It would be recognized by the federal government, the IRS, all the states, and (hopefully) by international treaty.

The only entitites that wouldn't have to recognize a FEDERAL civil union would be "the church."

[davidinalameda]

10. as long as all the benefits that are available under heterosexual marriage

are included, then I don't care what it's called

[Ian David]

5. And for the record, my preference is for federal MARRIAGE equality

But depending on what happens between 2006 and 2008, and how "stacked" the courts get, I think federal civil unions might be "the best bet."

If we get the repugs out of office, and keep the christo-fascists out of the courts, I say plow straight ahead with marriage.

But if the right-wing wins everything they want, there is no way in hell there will be gay marriage for at least another 20 years.

At least, not unless they finally get Raptured and leave the rest of us alone.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. Let's set the record straight. And I do mean STRAIGHT. . .

.
Let's set the record straight. And I do mean STRAIGHT. . . I am damn tired of gays and others regurgitating ignorant rightwing crapola. Damn tired. Can we at least in GLBT DU posting recite relevant and truthful facts? Let's give it a try, shall we?

Religion has nothing to do with marriage. Again, say it s-l-o-w-l-y -- RELIGION IN AMERICA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE IN AMERICA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. P E R I O D. Never has any church, synagogue or temple or whatever other religious entity/institution/clergyman granted marriage to any couple in America. Again, that's N E V E R. Got it? And please stop regurgitating religion-into-law crap!

The civil laws of our 50 states and territories grant marriage to couples. Straight couples. It's those very same civil laws in the various states and territories that allow clergy to marry couples as well as judges and Justices of the Peace. Again, state civil laws grant the authority to clergymen, to judges, and to Justices of the Peace to marry couples. It's NEVER been the other way around. N E V E R!

One more time, it's the states that give the authority to clergymen to marry couples. It's the states that give authority to Justices of the Peace and to judges and to certain others to marry couples. And it's also the laws of the various states -- civil laws -- that say WHO can get married. Again, RELIGION HAS SQUAT TO DO WITH OUR CIVIL LAWS!!! Get it?

Where the hell did this crap about the Roman Catholic Church can marry couples and the Southern Baptists or some other rightwing radical religion-into-law idiots . . . where did this shit start? And they have a say in it? Where the hell did it start? It's pure bullshit since marriage is of CIVIL LAWS not of church laws!

Geezuz. And, oh, btw, our civil laws, both state and federal grant married-only couples certain rights, privileges, as well as obligations and burdens that are not granted to non-married couples. So think about it. Why the hell should America allow married-only laws to straights and withhold those very same laws from gays? It's a classic case of discrimination, of blatant denial of both states and federal civil rights.

What's the cure? Well. For starters, why not toss out all the civil law privileges, rights, burdens and obligations in both states and federal civil laws of married couples if America continues to deny those right etc to all Americans? Hhhhhhmmmmmmm? That sounds reasonable.

And, please get it right from now on in. Try reciting some of this before the nearest mirror. Become comfortable w/ it. Thanks. And please pass it around, please.



.

[Brianboru]

15. Open your eyes. You are close to

the answer. Marriage is viewed from a religious perspective. Mark 10:6-9 “"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." You cannot deny the religious link. Let that continue, for those who want it. But a religious marriage will mean nothing from a civil perspective. No rights. No protections. Let’s really separate church and state. The only way ANY couple gets legal protection is with a secular civil union. We re-define religion out of a civil union.

Religion should have nothing to do with marriage, from a legal perspective. We have allowed that to happen. If we move to a purely secular civil union, with all the legal protections of a current “marriage”, we take religion out of the equation. Religious organizations would not be allowed to perform a civil union. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Who cares what the Baptists consider to be a marriage. Except the Baptists. Before or after the preacher “marries” the couple, they need to get a civil union to get any civil protections. Case closed. Unless you insist on the Baptists recognizing your union. Why do you care what the Baptists think?

[TaleWgnDg]

22. huh? my post that you so erroneously ridicule is NOT my personal opinion

.
Huh? My post that you so erroneously ridicule is NOT my personal opinion. Instead, I recite the law. Marriage is a civil law contract authorized by the civil laws of all our 50 states and territories. Our civil laws authorize who may marry couples and what couples may marry. Religion in America has never authorized who may marry couples and what couples may marry.

I suggest you re-read what I've posted. And, do try to separate your own personal opinion and those opinions of the various religions who attempt to push their own religious tenets into our laws across America. There's a distinct difference between opinion and fact. I suggest you try the latter instead of the former.

[Brianboru]

30. I think we're in violent agreement here.

We know marriage is a civil thing. They own the word "marriage" as religious thing. Let's redefine "marriage" as a civil union for everyone. Religious organizations do set guidelines for marriage, but only for their own purposes.

I wasn't ridiculing you. I just feel that you are so close what I had suggested, that the word marriage was getting in the way. Let them have the word. Let them do what ever they want with their own marriages. But any civil rights of marriage come from the civil union.

[benevolent dictator]

33. But marriage wasn't originally a Religious practice

it was orginally secular and was basically a property contract, since women were considered property. The church only got involved because they needed someone who could read and write, and usually the only people in town who could do that were in the church.

[Brianboru]

40. For the last 2,000 years or so it was religious

As the Roman Catholic Church became powerful in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage became part of the Church's canon law. And then there is the Bible - Mark 10:6-9 “"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This is the challenge to overcome. People feel and believe it is religious - not recently, but from the beginning of creation. Arguing law might convince a few in the classroom, but not in the real world. Unless we can get in front of this and separate the two, they will change the laws. Then we have lost.

[benevolent dictator]

41. In many societies

the government and church were inseperable, or the church was used as an officiator because the priest could read and write and no one else.

You keep quoting that one passage of Mark, what about all of the passages in the OLD Testament where men have multiple wives, sell wives, and just generally regard them as property? Marriage was about property rights. Why should we let them take what isn't theirs?

[Brianboru]

43. I keep quoting that passage

because the RW are Christians, not Jews. The OT laws were changed. That's why Christians can eat pork. The issue we need to address is the current belief that marriage is a religious institution. This is why I believe that unless we can separate the two -- keeping "marriage" religious, but establishing cilil unions as a civil right for ALL. No property rights without a civil union.

I could be wrong, but I don't see how we can win otherwise.

[benevolent dictator]

48. Based on that logic there should be no reasons why gays and lesbians can't

get married. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality one way or the other, and the only thing anyone can ever find for me about how it's "wrong" is from the OT.

The OT laws were changed. That's why Christians can eat pork.

Oh, and you should tell the Right Wingers that, because they only ever seem to quote the Old Testament.

[Brianboru]

51. Jesus didn't, but Paul sure did

Here's a few:

Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Timothy 1:8-10 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Cor 6: 9-10Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[benevolent dictator]

34. *clap clap clap clap clap* nt

[Brianboru]

7. Civil unions would have all the benefits of marriage

What would a marriage provide, if a civil union were written to provide all the benefits of marriage? The state would get out of the marriage business. All "marriages" would be civil unions. Only a church would provide a marriage.

[TaleWgnDg]

14. please see above post #13. thanks.

(this is from a family law practitioner of more than 37 or so years too)

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

16. I now support this idea

Which is a first for me.

I do feel it's important to find common ground sometime between now and the next election cycle, in order to get dems back in power.

I support the idea of everybody gets only civil unions, marriages are completely at your own option at whatever church of your choice, and we grandfather anyone who now has an official marriage, so that they are not threatened in any way with change, only going forward. I do think it's more actionable than gay marriage.

Gay marriage MAY come as a result of court rulings, but that's a separate avenue.

For those who wish to advance gay rights on a legislative level, pushing to get the government out of the marriage business and to replace what is today known as an official "marriage" with official "civil unions" is the way to go.

And it's a twofer, as it strengthens and heightens the wall of separation between church and state.

[Ian David]

17. So we would legislate civil unions and then litigate marriage?

In other words, pass a law creating Civil Unions, and then go to court for the right to Equal Marriage.

Any thoughts on that?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

18. Well, no, actually - it would be civil unions for eveyone going forward

that is, we would establish civil unions as THE institution which is officially sanctioned, and "marriage" would be on-your-own.

An important element of this plan would be that nobody who has an official "marriage" would have to change ANYTHING. They get to keep their "separate but equal" institution and make no changes at all, but from say, January 1, 2008 or whatever, anyone wanting to "unionize" with another adult would only have available "civil union."

There are two things which this does: 1) removes the threat of losing something from those who currently HAVE something; and 2) makes civil union the de facto institution of marriage, and the rights that go along with marriage would inevitably carry over in piecemeal fashion, maybe, but it would happen, governments would come to recognize "civil union" as the new "marriage".

Change would come somewhat slower, but it would present fewer problems than "gay marriage" and a majority of Americans already support the notion of "civil unions".

[Brianboru]

19. Exactly the point! Eliminate secular marriages.

The concept of "marriage" is religious. There is no reason why we need anything other than a secular union. Everyone gets one. If you want a religious marriage, go to a church.

[TaleWgnDg]

23. No. It is not. Again, you recite religion instead of law. Why?

.
No. It is not. Again, you recite religion instead of law. Why? Why do you persist on reciting and regurgitating church "law" instead of the law under our federal constitution and of the 50 states and territories across America? Tis, you who are confused and mixed up and have accepted the radical religious view.

Marriage in America is a civil law construct. PERIOD. Marriage in America has NEVER BEEN a church construct. Got it?

I suggest you attempt to read law on this subject, instead of regurgitating (incessantly) church opinions and church history, which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with our laws in America. geezuz. No wonder why the religion-into-law yoyos have a great time w/ folks of similar ilk across America. You actually BELIEVE their shit. Start reading the law on this subject in post #13 in this DU thread.

[Ian David]

20. Call it "The Separaiton of Marriage and State"? n/t

[benevolent dictator]

35. What for? Marriage ain't religious. nt

[TaleWgnDg]

26. self-delete

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. Well ya kow...

..I still wouldn't be able to support it. I am having a union meeting tonight with the union I would have joined if I didn't get terminated from my job last week (long story.) Anyway, if I want to be unionized, I will join a union. But when I marry my partner, we will be getting married and not unionized.

[Ian David]

6. "X-Treme Cohabitation" doesn't work? It's cool, it's hip, it's da bom!

[foreigncorrespondent]

12. I don't even get...

..any cohabitation with my partner. Remember the U.S. doesn't recognize the validity of same sex relationships for immigration purposes.

Basically we shouldn't have to take a second class seat to people who think they have a right to a word.

In my country same sex marriage has been banned completely. My government has taken that step and declared all queers second class citizens. Why would I want the same thing for my partner?

Besides if we side with the devil we are gonna get burned. All this looks great typed out, but in reality, it won't happen. They do not want us having any rights at all.

On edit: typo

[TaleWgnDg]

25. Exactly. Why would anyone want marriage instead of something less?

.
Exactly. Why would anyone want marriage instead of something less, e.g., "civil unions?" Why would anyone want to have a "civil union" which varies, state-to-state. Why would anyone want a "civil union" which lacks federal legal acknowledgement? Why would anyone settle for second-class status in law?

As well as, why would anyone want to be a second-class citizen under the various state constitutions and our federal constitution?

So. So-called "civil unions" grant something in civil law that is different state-to-state, therefore it is not "portable" state-to-state. Another state would not be forced (in law) to acknowledge nor accept another state's legal benefits, obligations, privileges and immunities . . .

In addition, the quagmire gets broader and deeper . . . when one considers the federal civil laws benefit, obligations, privileges, and immunities that are granted to married-onlys. How many federal laws for marrieds-only are there? More than 2,000 federal laws for marrieds only?

And, no state can grant those federal laws to a "civil union."

And it goes on and on and on. Layppl simply do NOT understand the legal ramifications of marriage. And the construct of so-called "civil unions."

And, as if that is not enough. Most people fail to understand that marriage is a civil law contract. As such marriage is not granted by religions. Folks get civil law and religious tenets confused and mixed-up. All of which falls straight into the hands of the radical rightwing religion-into-law crap which is personified by many here in this DU thread.




.

[Brianboru]

4. Marriage is a religious institution

in the minds of the RW. We need to press for legal, civil rights. No one on the RRW could argue with "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."

There is no reason to argue against a civil union, except from a religious perspective. It is an easy win, and we get all the protections we need.

[TaleWgnDg]

24. There you go again -- reciting religion instead of law!

.
There you go again -- reciting religion instead of law! Again, tis you who is confused and regurgitating religious crapola.

1.) Marriage is a legal civil contract authorized under the civil laws across America. Marriage has been found to be a "fundamental right" under our federal constitution.

2.) Our 50 states legislate the civil laws of marriage. That is, who can get married. And who can marry those couples.

3.) Never in America has any religious institution authorized marriages. Never in America has any religious institution had the authority to grant a marriage to anyone. Read this again. S L O W L Y. Let it sink in.

4.) Again, marriage is a civil law institution. hello?

5.) Again, marriage in America is NOT a construct of any religion.

6.) On top of all of that -- there is a further layer in law. That is, that in all 50 states and territories including the federal jurisdiction, there a SPECIAL LAWS both civil and criminal FOR MARRIED COUPLES ONLY. Got it yet? That's special laws for marrieds-only and for no one else.

7.) Therefore, as the legal argument goes: Under our state and federal constitutions no one can deny marriage to same sex couples.

8.) To suggest something less than full and broad acknowledgement of marriage, i.e., "civil unions," is to deny all the rights, privileges, burdens, and obligations as set forth under the 50 state constitutions and the federal constitution. That is, in state laws for marrieds-only and in federal law for marrieds-only. Do you get it yet?

BTW, an analogy is made u/ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (separate but equal) which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (separate is NOT equal). I suggest you read this and try to analyze the law. Plessy and Brown will further clear your head of your erroneous subjectiveness.

Is this all over your head? Or do you simply refuse to read the relevant law on this subject? It's truly detrimental for gays (and others who want to uphold the rights of gays and their families) to spew their oppositions' position thereby adopting it as your own!

BTW, my old law school students and paralegal students were able to understand this, why not you? Shall we pass out the test papers and pencils for a test now? LOL

__________________

edited to add: I have not addressed the legal consequences of the various state constitutions wherein there have been amendments to restrict the civil laws of marriage to "one woman and one man" etc., nor have I addressed the legal consequences of the federal civil law DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act), nor have I addressed the legal consequences if an amendment is added to our federal constitution, e.g., the restriction of marriage to "one man and one woman."




.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

27. But if c.union leads to resolution, what difference does it make?

That is, if a Federal Civil Union Law says unless you have one at the time such law takes effect, "marriage" is no longer recognized by the state - everybody gets a civil union, nothing more.

Where do you see the problem with that?

[TaleWgnDg]

29. Where is the problem . . . many. Too damn many . . .

.
Where is the problem . . . many. Too damn many . . . First of all, you assume something that is impossible to achieve.

First of all you believe that it is possible to grant all the rights, privileges, burdens, obligations in all the laws -- both all the state civil and criminal laws together with all the federal civil and criminal laws granted to marrieds-only will be granted to civil-unions. How is THAT possible? Seriously. Are you saying that the religion-into-law radical rightwingnuts will be willing to grant all these laws to gays? However, these very same people are not willing to grant these laws to gays now? Thus, it's only a matter of semantics, that is a simple word? "Marriage?"

No. I know it's impossible. Those very same people who are so blatantly in-yer-face-homophobic will remain homophobic. That is, whether the word is "marriage" or "civil union."

It's never been about rights being granted; it's been about the exclusion of gays, overall, P E R I O D. Read the edicts from Rome, from the Holy See, from the Vatican. Read the literature promulgated by the rest of the religion-into-law rightwingnuts!

However, just for argument (for argument purposes only), I'll say it is possible. As such, you are forgetting more, much more. The second-class status of "civil union" and it's non-portability to other (foreign) nations. Marriage is a civil institution that is recognized in civil (and criminal) law in all the sovereign nations across the planet. And, no way in hell (pardon the pun) will the rest of globe bend to the will of the religion-into-law rightwingnut crazies in this nation. The litigation will be legion! Geezuz, some of these nations try to hide kids behind the backs of their laws now but for international treaties and other means to bend their will. And now you want MORE added to their ammunition dump in international domestic relations (family) law lawsuits???!!! HOLY CRAPOLA. It's entirely infeasible.

Does this go to the overall fact that we, Americans, envision ourselves as an island? Superior and unanswerable to other nations? Yup, other nations say we look at ourselves as such as well as treat other nations as if we were. George Walker Bush does. Please don't emulate that bastard.

________________________________________

edited to add: Take a gander at justin899's post #21, below. He explains, further, some of the legal issues that would befall gays across America. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

And, welcome to DU, ladeuxiemevoiture :hi:

________________________________________

[benevolent dictator]

37. The problem is with

allowing the religious right to take something that isn't theirs and steal it and force us to make laws around what they want. If they know they can take a governmental institution (marriage) and turn it into a religious one, what will they go after next?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

47. Good point.

I'm just not sure if that's an effective short-term strategy, or even a long-term one, for actually achieving equal rights.

[benevolent dictator]

49. I'm not convinced that pushing for civil unions is either...

regardless of whether or not everyone gets them.

The RW just doesn't want us to have rights, they aren't going to let us have them just because we call them something else. If you have gay and lesbian only civil unions, that's back to the "separate but equal" thing, plus it opens up the doors for all kinds of harassment and discrimination. If everyone gets civil unions, then the RW will claim you're attacking the entire institution of marriage by trying to make it a marginal part of society and not it's "foundation." They aren't going to be like, "Oh, OK! That's a great idea, why didn't we think of that?? We'll ALL get "civil unions" for the rights and then whomever wants to can then get "married" in the church! Brilliant!"

Somehow... I just don't see that happening. Ever.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn down civil unions if they were suddenly offered in my state, but I don't see pushing for civil unions for everyone to be any more effective than pushing for marriage equality. In fact it's probably less effective, because first you have to convince LGBT people to go along with it, then you have to convince a bunch of happily married heteros to go along with it. Good luck.

[Brianboru]

31. Tis you, my friend, who is missing the reality of the situation.

Marriage was mentioned in the Bible long before we had any laws in this country. Before we had a country. Give up the word marriage, require ALL couples to have a civil union, and all are equal. Caesar gets the civil union. God gets the marriage.

Denying the reality that marriage is a religious institution is never going to win.

What is so hard to understand in this?

[TaleWgnDg]

32. It's fine to post your opinions on message boards; however,

.
It's fine to post your opinions on message boards; however, if one continues to post his/her opinions as you have done w/o reading responses and other such postings, then why should someone continue to post to you?

In other words, I've responded in law to your many postings in this DU thread, yet you refuse to read them, to analyze them, and to assimilate them. In addition, it's obvious that you are no lawyer. And this is a matter of law, not of religion. As a lawyer, I have tried, patiently, to inform you of relevant law regarding this legal issue. Yet, you refuse. You remain mired in non-legalities. And continue to raise irrelevant issues such as religion. I pass. It's futile.

Continue to rant as does George Walker Bush:



.

[Brianboru]

45. I read your posts. I just do not find them convincing.

You remind me of the government bureaucrats who came up with the "Great Idea" of the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. Lasts longer than paper. Saves the government lots of money. NOBODY USED THEM!

This is about winning, not winning an argument with students.

"But this is a Great Idea! Why wont't the people use them!"

[benevolent dictator]

38. Marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament but

as a property contract, the whole women were property thing... Marriage for love is a relatively recent idea, and marriage didn't orginate as part of the church, it was a secular contract.

What does it "being mentioned in the Bible" have to do with it's origins? I've never read a passage saying "And now God created marriage in all it's glory to be bestowed on one man and one woman forever after."

[Brianboru]

39. Look in the new testament and you see the problem

Mark 10:6-9 “"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." You actually paraphrased this passage quite well. That is what the opposition believes about marriage. We will not win on this unless we can change the issue to one we can win -- "Give to Caesar..."

This is the challenge. You can talk the law all you want, but in the heart and minds of the many we need to change the discussion away from marriage and to civil rights.

[benevolent dictator]

42. Why should WE change OUR argument and not make THEM learn some history

It would do a lot of them a world of good. Maybe if people who ought to know better didn't keep perpetuating this myth that marriage is religious we wouldn't be in this conundrum. I'll bet most people don't know the Bible well enough to be able to quote that one passage in every post/conversation.

It's not like it's just the law in this country, it started as a government institution.

Besides, do you HONESTLY think that you can get people who so desperately "want to protect the sanctity of marriage" to give up their marriage and get "civil unionized"? I know the argument, they can go get married in a church if they want to then, but that's not how they'll see it. They'll see it as an attack on marriage and an attack on religion. You're trying to take marriage out of government! You Godless heathen! It'll be just like the "attack on religion" when they wanted to take the "under God" part out of the pledge.

[Brianboru]

44. It's about winning

Maybe this example will help. I was putting in domestic partner benefits at a company. I had to overcome their religious concerns.

First, you have to understand the belief systems of these people. It’s a bit like anthropology. You need to sit around the fire with them and listen. When you argue, argue from their beliefs, and use their terms. These people fervently believe that homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, and that people who commit homosexual acts are committing a grave sin. However, adultery (which, according to the Bible, includes re-marriage after divorce) carries the same scriptural penalty as homosexuality (Death by stoning). This tells me that the sins of divorce and remarriage are on par with that homosexuality.

I ask them – If we prohibit domestic partner benefits, should we deny medical benefits to those who are divorced? And their children? The Bible tells me so! They lust happen to like adultery more than homosexuality. What is the difference? They have no response, other than they just don’t like it.

We need to separate the covenantal aspects of marriage with the secular ones. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”

[benevolent dictator]

50. I don't think most people

really give a rat's ass. Most people don't concern themselves with homosexuality in their day to day lives. The people you're talking about compromising for are a small minority, and probably an even smaller minority of them will go for it.

The people actively working against gay rights are doing just that, working against gay rights. Not same-sex marriages as they claim, but gay rights. They don't want tolerance (for GLBT people) taught in schools, they don't want us on - especially kid's - TV (Buster), they don't want us to have domestic partnership benefits, they don't want us to work for them, they don't want us to be protected from discrimination in housing, they don't want us. Period. Pandering to them will get you no where.

Bowing to the Right Wing's screams will only give them more power.

Besides, it's not exactly the best "strategy to win" when you have to convince both LGBT people and happily married heterosexuals that they should change all the papers from "married" to "civil unionized." I've never seen any stats for how many people support turning EVERYONE's marriage into a civil union, but I bet it's not many. People support civil unions for gays because they see them as being less than marriage, ask them to suddenly accept that for everyone and you've got the same problem you've got now.

[Brianboru]

52. You're probably right. When I argue with these folks I

like to get to the root cause of their bigotry. Many hope they can "cure" the gays with Jesus. Some just hate them. It's good to know who you're dealing with.

But the sign of a real compromise is when nobody is completly happy with the solution.

[benevolent dictator]

36. How about arguing against letting the RRW steal a word and tradition

that wasn't theirs to begin with. I know I've seen this discussion elsewhere on DU, and as others have said, what's next? Let's not let gays buy wine because drinking it is a sacrement! Why should we let them take "marriage" as their own when it was never theirs?

[Poppyseedman]

8. The 14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In a nutshell, why eventually there will be gay marriage. Unless the "Defense of Marriage" amendment is passed. Which is a very big possibility

[TaleWgnDg]

28. Yup, as well as the "full faith and credit" clause . . . However,

.
Yup, as well as the "full faith and credit" clause . . . However, I strongly believe that if a federal constitutional amendment passes the federal congress as you suggest, such an amendment will not be ratified by the requisite 3/4rds states, particularly if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the various states constitutions prohibition of same sex marriage.

[moose65]

9. I don't care about the name of it.....

IF it were federal civil unions, recognized by all 50 states, with the exact same rights and priviliges of marriage, then that would be fine with me. I don't care about using the word "marriage." Let the straights have it! As long as my partner and I received equal rights and treatment under the LAW, we could call it the "Hiding the Salami" law for all I care....... the RIGHTS are the important things here, not the damn name!

[noamnety]

11. No vote, I couldn't find my option

civil unions as a stepping stone.

I think we can get that pushed through faster than marriage, but it's not a permanent solution that I'd settle for.

Eventually, people would figure out their world didn't self-destruct, and then push for full marriage, which is inevitable in the end.

It is encouraging that even 10 years ago, I never would have imagined that some states would be pushing to legalize even civil unions.

[justin899]

21. There is not an ice cube's chance in hell that a Federal law would EVER..

..grant all 1100+ of the federal rights and 300-400+ state rights of marriage to civil unions.

Furthermore you're not going to be able to pass a federal law which attempts to force all states to grant all state rights to civil unions that they grant to marriages. Many states would refer to it as an unfunded mandate (since state tax collections would be impacted) and there would be law suit after law suit from state after state.

And even if you could get some (and you would NEVER get them all) federal rights granted to this civil unions for gays law (and they would never ever get rid of marriage for fear of being labeled anti-marriage)they could always come back in the future and take away rights from civil unions without impacting the heterosexual majority who are involved in real marriages.

Calling it something else makes it something else. What you're advocating is a new national segregation law and that would be the death of marriage equality.

[booley]

46. we already separate religious doctrine from civil marriage

Ask any DIVORCED CATHOLIC who has remarried.

Divorce is perfectly legal. Thanks to people like REAGAN, you don't even have to have one person at fault. Both parties can simply say that they don't want to be married anymore and that's it.

But according the last Pope, divorcees are right up there with Gay people. Both are supposedly denied the Kingdom of Heaven (one of the many issues I had with the guy) If you are Catholic and get a divorce instead of an annulment (because the Church doesn't always let you have an annulment) then you can't get married in a Catholic Church. And that' s perfectly legal too.

The Separation of Church and State works both ways. The Government can authorize a marriage and Churches are under no obligation to agree or change their doctrine just because of it. especially when if a church doesn't want to marry somebody, those people can always go somewhere else.

I am surprised more people haven't brought this up. or maybe they did and I missed it.