ThePreciating Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I have yet to find a flaw in this solution. The state from now on will only perform civil unions between two people. No marriages. Any two people who want the legal bindings brought about by marriage need to get this civil union. Marriages are handled by religious institutions only, and get no state recognition by themselves. Each religion can therefore set its own standard. The state will have no reason to intervene, since the state is only concerned with civil unions. What's the problem with this approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Problem 1: A lot of people don't want it solved. That said, though. Every time Tailgate raises the subject, somebody proposes that solution, and tons of people all express agreement with this radical new proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No problems at all with this solution, except one. If it had been proposed years ago, it would be perfect. Now, however, there is so much water under the bridge and bad feelings on both sides that no one will accept it. Gays will think - correctly - that the change is just being made to deny them full societal recognition of their marriage. Conservatives will think - correctly - that the change is just being made to take away their ability to deny gays full societal recognition of their "whatever it is but it isn't a marriage." So it's doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 well i would say they should recognize them rather than perform them, but yeah, that's what "ought" to happen. even though it seems to me that'd be the conservative solution ("the gov't can't tell me what to do") it's the conservatives that don't like it. and of course this super duper solution results in some VERY complicated problems in terms of taxes, fraud, divorce court, insurance, benefits, health care, debt obligation, etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I wrote my state senator (not fed) with this suggestion. I guess my putting it in with other stuff allowed him to ignore it in his response. It's a shame, because I think he was one of the one's filabustering it in the MD state house...but then again Anne Arundel County isn't exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive thoughts in MD. grrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No problems at all with this solution, except one.If it had been proposed years ago, it would be perfect. Now, however, there is so much water under the bridge and bad feelings on both sides that no one will accept it. Gays will think - correctly - that the change is just being made to deny them full societal recognition of their marriage. Conservatives will think - correctly - that the change is just being made to take away their ability to deny gays full societal recognition of their "whatever it is but it isn't a marriage." So it's doomed. That's what I don't get. It's essentially that way now. Why not just make it so? Gays will always feel treaded on and the religious right will always love doing the treading. I don't see anything changing if the Government did what it says, which is stay out of religious matters, then practice what they preach in that marriage is a religious issue, then agree that two people sharing a home and family should get benefits associated to them under the facade that is "civil union" or "marriage". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 hint: some people don't agree with the separation of church and state. (often the same people who make the most noise about the constitution being sacred, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 hint: some people don't agree with the separation of church and state. (often the same people who make the most noise about the constitution being sacred, etc) Oh, this thread wasn't going to get spun to death before, you had to bring that discussion into it, too, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I have yet to find a flaw in this solution.The state from now on will only perform civil unions between two people. No marriages. Any two people who want the legal bindings brought about by marriage need to get this civil union. Marriages are handled by religious institutions only, and get no state recognition by themselves. Each religion can therefore set its own standard. The state will have no reason to intervene, since the state is only concerned with civil unions. What's the problem with this approach? The thing is, this approach really changes nothing but the terminology. It would make more sense to simply make gay marriages legal than to go about it this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Problem 1: Why do they want to get married in the first place? I and millions of others can easily testify it aint worth it! Ha Ha.. my wife would kill me if she read that. Good luck with your proposal.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The thing is, this approach really changes nothing but the terminology. It would make more sense to simply make gay marriages legal than to go about it this way. No, it actually makes sense. Terminology matters sometimes. People who feel that their religious beliefs are separate and special in this area will get to say: "They may have a civil union, but they don't have a Baptist marriage as we understand it" and they will be correct. It will remove the (false but strongly held) fear among the right that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or face anti-discrimination laws. And gays who wish to do so can go be married by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Everyone wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 That said, though. Every time Tailgate raises the subject, somebody proposes that solution, and tons of people all express agreement with this radical new proposal. LOL- OP, we also landed on the moon ya know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 and of course this super duper solution results in some VERY complicated problems in terms of taxes, fraud, divorce court, insurance, benefits, health care, debt obligation, etc etc etc. Not really. Civil unions would be treated as marriages currently are treated. Religious Marriage would have no legal standing and would be solely a religious construct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I really don't have a problem accepting civil unions between gay couples. With benefits provided to families and spouses and the whole thing. I just don't want it called marriage. Marriage is between a husband and wife. Let a civil union be between two males or two females. I'd be fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I really don't have a problem accepting civil unions between gay couples. With benefits provided to families and spouses and the whole thing.I just don't want it called marriage. Marriage is between a husband and wife. Let a civil union be between two males or two females. I'd be fine with that. I agree 100%. I dont want them to be denied any rights or anything like that. They can be together. I just do not think it should be called a marriage. A marriage was defined as a man and a woman and is a religious partnership. It should remain that way. But I would be out there supporting gay rights because I definitely think they deserve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I've been saying this for a long time, as have a lot of people on this board, I wish it would happen but it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 State marriage means absolutely nothing. The whole "issue" is totally moronic. Let them be "married" and get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Pretty sensible. Which probably means it has no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I have yet to find a flaw in this solution.The state from now on will only perform civil unions between two people. No marriages. Any two people who want the legal bindings brought about by marriage need to get this civil union. Marriages are handled by religious institutions only, and get no state recognition by themselves. Each religion can therefore set its own standard. The state will have no reason to intervene, since the state is only concerned with civil unions. What's the problem with this approach? Here is a down side for the state - read taxpayer as I see it with this approach. Heterosexuals can make babies on their own - Homosexuals cannot - whether intended or not. Current state benefits give more to unwed non working mothers with infants than those married to the working father. For social reasons some get married despite the fiscal ramifications. Your proposal would then encourage marriage for the above scenario but discourage civil unions - as I see the later strictly a financial thing and the former a religious thing under your proposal. Divorce would also be a religious thing vice a legal thing if a couple never applied for a civil union. Between two adults without children maybe not a huge issue in many cases add in children and it complicates things. I could see how your proposal would then create more payouts buy the state/taxpayer all in the name of trying to appease everyone. When it comes to taxes most everyone will likely do what is best for them. Should doing a civil union benefit them the most financially they will do it. Should it not they will not. This will result in less income in and more qualifying for welfare/WIC. I think it is in the states best interest to encourage couples who bring children into this world to stay together. This is not only best (in most cases) for the children it is best for the state. All the other stuff about marriage - civil unions is secondary to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't think I understand your point, islehawg. The idea, as I understand it, is that everyone would get civil unions. That would be the legal thing. Meanwhile some (most) people would get religious "marriage" ceremonies too. I don't see how this would lead to any more payouts by the state to anyone. It doesn't discourage anyone from getting married. Quite the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 You'd have to vote out the people that ignore you on this. but they bring home a few dollars. I seem to put that as my default answer to all these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't think I understand your point, islehawg.The idea, as I understand it, is that everyone would get civil unions. That would be the legal thing. Meanwhile some (most) people would get religious "marriage" ceremonies too. I don't see how this would lead to any more payouts by the state to anyone. It doesn't discourage anyone from getting married. Quite the contrary. My understanding of the OP was they would be separate - one legally recognized by the state the other religiously recognized by the church. A marriage license currently is something required of the state not church to formalize the wedding is it not? Some churches (such as the Catholic church I was raised in) do not recognize some legal aspects of state marriage such as divorce. What then would force the church to require a civil union or marriage license or register with the state that the marriage occurred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordac Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The first time I saw this proposed, it was by Mike Kinsley, and it was the 90s. Its called "privatization". Get the govt out of the marriage business. Here's an actual original solution. Take the Ms and Fs off of the birth certificates and drivers licenses. As long as 2 people over 18 present themselves at the county courthouse, they can get married. Its none of the gubmints damn business whether I've got a dingly-dangly or a va-jay-jay anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think the solution proposed by the OP would work. Only thing is all of the extree religious people would go bonkers and then say they deserve extra benefits since they aren't sinning or something crazy like that. Seriously...this should be a non-issue though. People need to get over themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 What then would force the church to require a civil union or marriage license or register with the state that the marriage occurred? Nothing... and that's kind of the point. If you want legal benefits you have to file for a license. There's no crossover whatsoever between your marriage under god and your civil union under the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.