The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Yeah. This isn't a case where compromise is acceptable. That's like saying we should have come to a compromise on the institution of slavery.
Civil Unions for all.
Exactly. The equal protection clause isn't negotiable. The only real options are marriages for all, civil unions for all, or a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages/unions. Yeah, that last is an option. Obviously not one I'd support, and not one that will happen, but still a (legal) option.
Though I think honestly a case could be made that civil unions, provided they give the exact same privileges and protections as marriage, would actually meet the letter of equal protection. Unlike the "separate but equal" situations that were struck down before, it's possible to make a legal arrangement truly equal in everything but name. Again, not a solution I'd support but it's an argument that could be made. But again, it hinges on the idea that the arrangement/contract must be exactly equal. As it stands I believe in the states that do have civil unions or other arrangements this is not the case.
The argument could be made, yeah...and it has, here. And the people spoke as one and told the government to go fuck themselves. We can make civil union equal to marriage- we could even make it more equal!- but as long as the institution is separate, gays will reject it (and rightfully so, IMHO- marriage does not belong to anyone).
Eh, I'd say that marriage belongs to various religious groups. Civil Unions belong to governments. That we have priests acting on behalf of the government to formalize a marriage license seems like more of an issue than saying that gays should get a contract called marriage.
Except marriage predates all major religions; it wasn't created by any one group, as far as we know, so how can it belong to anyone other than our race as a whole? It might be more accurate to look at marriage as an act rather than an institution.
I don't really think it's relevant in any practical sense to say that marriage belongs to 'our race.' 'Our race' will not go up in figurative arms, publish denouncements, and excommunicate people (alright, they don't do this one anymore AFAIK) if you tell them marriage does not belong to them. 'Our race' is not really anything other than some words attached to a feel-good statement that might have a basis in fact, but has no basis in practicality.
Separating civil unions (the half with the benefits pertinent to everyday living) and marriage (the half that has none outside of the particulars of the religion performing it) along the lines of government:religious institutions seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.
Even in the deep Republicanistan (Nebraska), most people I know are for the "state gives you a civil union, and then you get married at a church/place of worship which has no bearing on the legal status of said civil union". This lets Church X keep their definition of marriage, and they're also not forced by the government to perform a marriage, which it should be like.
Getting a civil union should be as hard as a divorce. For example, to get a divorce here you must live apart for at least a year. Any living together during that time resets the clock.
So, to get a civil union, you must live together at the same residence for at least a year.
You could probably accelerate the process if a child is in the picture, but then you have the problem of people just subverting the system by getting pregnant first then applying. It's not easy.
You realize that it's against an awful lot of people's religions to live together before getting married, right?
Even in the deep Republicanistan (Nebraska), most people I know are for the "state gives you a civil union, and then you get married at a church/place of worship which has no bearing on the legal status of said civil union". This lets Church X keep their definition of marriage, and they're also not forced by the government to perform a marriage, which it should be like.
Getting a civil union should be as hard as a divorce. For example, to get a divorce here you must live apart for at least a year. Any living together during that time resets the clock.
So, to get a civil union, you must live together at the same residence for at least a year.
You could probably accelerate the process if a child is in the picture, but then you have the problem of people just subverting the system by getting pregnant first then applying. It's not easy.
You realize that it's against an awful lot of people's religions to live together before getting married, right?
Theoretically under his system they could go ahead and get married in their church and just get a CU a year later.
I don't really think it's relevant in any practical sense to say that marriage belongs to 'our race.' 'Our race' will not go up in figurative arms, publish denouncements, and excommunicate people (alright, they don't do this one anymore AFAIK) if you tell them marriage does not belong to them. 'Our race' is not really anything other than some words attached to a feel-good statement that might have a basis in fact, but has no basis in practicality.
Separating civil unions (the half with the benefits pertinent to everyday living) and marriage (the half that has none outside of the particulars of the religion performing it) along the lines of government:religious institutions seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.
I agree in a purely pragmatic sense because it makes me feel so dirty giving fundies what they want.
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
How is a system where you need to live together with your spouse for a year before getting married in ANY WAY practical or pragmatic?
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
How is a system where you need to live together with your spouse for a year before getting married in ANY WAY practical or pragmatic?
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
How is a system where you need to live together with your spouse for a year before getting married in ANY WAY practical or pragmatic?
No one's advocating that except that one guy.
...and that's who I was talking to.
Man, forget to quote someone and you get jumped on.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
How is a system where you need to live together with your spouse for a year before getting married in ANY WAY practical or pragmatic?
No one's advocating that except that one guy.
...and that's who I was talking to.
Man, forget to quote someone and you get jumped on.
Well, there were two ideas being bandied around, and one specifically that people were talking about seriously. Without some context to your comments, it's really difficult to know what you're talking about. So give context and don't play the victim.
Getting a civil union should be as hard as a divorce. For example, to get a divorce here you must live apart for at least a year. Any living together during that time resets the clock.
So, to get a civil union, you must live together at the same residence for at least a year.
uhh... why? Are you saying this because getting rid of marriage would mean getting rid of divorce, and thus being civil de-unioned would be simple?
Otherwise, the limitation of one civil union at a time, and the de-civil unioning process being a pain in the ass where you loose half your stuff, I don't see the need for the disincentive, which really just makes the whole process harder and more expensive for the state as well as the people involved.
honestly, and I think it would be kinda weird, cause it's not like the social pressure and stuff to stick together doesn't have some positive effects on child rearing, and you are getting not married folks having kids. Folks have kids during that year. Which is a rather dangerous process when you get right down to it, and now they got to track down the parent, because the dad isn't technically married yet?
ehh.... that bit is too complicate, and really totally unnecessary. I don't see the point to it at all.
If you really and truly love each other, then waiting until you're done with school and then living together wouldn't factor into the final union.
I love my wife enough that I would strap a squid to my head for a month if that was the only way to remain married to her, but that doesn't make it a good requirement.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
If you really and truly love each other, then waiting until you're done with school and then living together wouldn't factor into the final union.
I love my wife enough that I would strap a squid to my head for a month if that was the only way to remain married to her, but that doesn't make it a good requirement.
This also fucks over couples who can't live together due to work circumstances. For instance, academic couples will often get starting jobs at different universities, and can live apart for decades. Oops no marriage because they aren't committed?
MrMister on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Thank you for your contribution Proto! In the meantime, the rest of us will keep an eye on pragmatism and practicality as we scramble to salvage the system so that benefits homosexual citizens of this nation are constitutionally entitled-to can be conferred upon them in a time-frame that doesn't span centuries!
Civil Unions may be a necessary concession, but it's important to keep in mind that they are a concession. Even disregarding the troubles that the civilly unionized have had so far with their separate but equal institution (things like hospital forms not having the correct boxes to check), there is a cultural cache associated with 'marriage' which is being fought over almost as fiercely as the legal rights in question. It's not just hospital visitation that gay people want, but the social respect that they feel entitled to.
No, I completely understand that. I completely agree with your sentiments, but the practicality of the situation needs to come first -- as a self-identified pragmatist, too, I'm sure that you see where I'm coming from. At least I seem to remember you're a pragmatist. Sorry if I mispeg! e_e
Gee, you presented a terrible option and people went ahead and told why it was terrible. What a bunch of jerks. It's like they think they're entitled to debate your assertions.
Jesus fucking christ it was just put forward as an option, but thanks to everyone for wasting an entire page on it.
No matter what though, it should be difficult to get a civil union.
You still haven't said WHY it should be difficult to get a civil union. When I got married, my husband and I went to the courthouse and filled out a form, then went back 2 days later and signed another one. Oh, and paid a fee. Why should it be more difficult than that?
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
There were two groups. Group A was full of people who lived together before marriage. Group B was full of people who did not live together before marriage. Group C was a control group of random people.
Now, of these three groups, which would you expect to have the highest divorce rate?
Group A.
OMG so surprised? You'd think that Group A would have people who were more familiar with each other, having endured a common living arrangement prior to marriage, right? Not really. It turns out that people who live together before marriage tend not to be in rigid social structures which force them to stay in marriage even when they are no longer happy or they feel that the relationship is no longer suitable. So yeah, when things don't work out, they get divorced instead of staying in a loveless marriage or staying together "for the kids" or staying together "because God will fuck me up if I divorce you".
So it's not that people in Group B are "better" at marriage. They're just more screwed when the shit hits the fan. Just kidding! To be fair, there is an argument that the cultural differences between the two groups bring about a more long-term view on the relationship (i.e. it's more about family and supporting each other than "love" and "happiness"). How good is that argument? I have no idea.
I'd link the actual study (and any related ones) but I no longer have access to the databases and I'm not gonna bother looking for it on the free stuff. IIRC the effect was only something lke 5% anyway. GG 50% divorce rate?
Someone like me would deliberately get a CU in a very toned down affair, and I'm willing to bet so would other straight couples.
The significance of that choice is much different when it's actually a choice. When you get a civil union it's an expression of hip liberalism and progressivism. When a person who can't marry gets a civil union, it expresses something else entirely: mostly, second-class status and a lack of social respect.
Even if you don't exercise it, the choice is itself liberating.
I like Obama's solution (or what I read was his solution about a year ago) the best, actually. He opted to create civil unions which had the same legal status as marriage (offering gay couples the same benefits as straight married couples) but that it was officially a separate entity to marriage.
Thus you give gays the same rights without touching the sticky issue of forcing something onto someone even though it goes against their deep rooted religious beliefs.
Maybe its just where I live, but marriage is not strictly a religious thing. There are plenty of 'secular' people I know that still value marriage. It would do these people a disservice if we make marriage strictly a religious affair. Civil Unions just sound like a cheap knockoff.
"Hey, are those two married?"
"Nah, they're civil unioned"
"...oh"
"yeah"
hesthefastest on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I like Obama's solution (or what I read was his solution about a year ago) the best, actually. He opted to create civil unions which had the same legal status as marriage (offering gay couples the same benefits as straight married couples) but that it was officially a separate entity to marriage.
Thus you give gays the same rights without touching the sticky issue of forcing something onto someone even though it goes against their deep rooted religious beliefs.
This is what ultimately is probably the only way it would ever get done in a general capacity for the US.
I mean, yes it's not fantastic in terms of equality, but IRL benefits > symbolism at the moment IMO.
I suppose, but I still feel like it's a slap in the face.
Posts
Separating civil unions (the half with the benefits pertinent to everyday living) and marriage (the half that has none outside of the particulars of the religion performing it) along the lines of government:religious institutions seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.
Theoretically under his system they could go ahead and get married in their church and just get a CU a year later.
I agree in a purely pragmatic sense because it makes me feel so dirty giving fundies what they want.
Just keep the system as is and let gays get married. Tell the religious nuts to get the fuck over it.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
How is a system where you need to live together with your spouse for a year before getting married in ANY WAY practical or pragmatic?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Well shit, who knew it could be that easy! I think we could stop discrimination and sexism too, all in one thread!
Congrats guys, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE PERFECT FOREVER!
No one's advocating that except that one guy.
...and that's who I was talking to.
Man, forget to quote someone and you get jumped on.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
it's cool, as long as you're not with that one guy
Well, there were two ideas being bandied around, and one specifically that people were talking about seriously. Without some context to your comments, it's really difficult to know what you're talking about. So give context and don't play the victim.
uhh... why? Are you saying this because getting rid of marriage would mean getting rid of divorce, and thus being civil de-unioned would be simple?
Otherwise, the limitation of one civil union at a time, and the de-civil unioning process being a pain in the ass where you loose half your stuff, I don't see the need for the disincentive, which really just makes the whole process harder and more expensive for the state as well as the people involved.
honestly, and I think it would be kinda weird, cause it's not like the social pressure and stuff to stick together doesn't have some positive effects on child rearing, and you are getting not married folks having kids. Folks have kids during that year. Which is a rather dangerous process when you get right down to it, and now they got to track down the parent, because the dad isn't technically married yet?
ehh.... that bit is too complicate, and really totally unnecessary. I don't see the point to it at all.
I love my wife enough that I would strap a squid to my head for a month if that was the only way to remain married to her, but that doesn't make it a good requirement.
This also fucks over couples who can't live together due to work circumstances. For instance, academic couples will often get starting jobs at different universities, and can live apart for decades. Oops no marriage because they aren't committed?
Civil Unions may be a necessary concession, but it's important to keep in mind that they are a concession. Even disregarding the troubles that the civilly unionized have had so far with their separate but equal institution (things like hospital forms not having the correct boxes to check), there is a cultural cache associated with 'marriage' which is being fought over almost as fiercely as the legal rights in question. It's not just hospital visitation that gay people want, but the social respect that they feel entitled to.
No matter what though, it should be difficult to get a civil union.
Why, exactly?
Because....?
Come on, I know there's a complete thought there, well I hope there is.
You still haven't said WHY it should be difficult to get a civil union. When I got married, my husband and I went to the courthouse and filled out a form, then went back 2 days later and signed another one. Oh, and paid a fee. Why should it be more difficult than that?
Now, of these three groups, which would you expect to have the highest divorce rate?
Group A.
OMG so surprised? You'd think that Group A would have people who were more familiar with each other, having endured a common living arrangement prior to marriage, right? Not really. It turns out that people who live together before marriage tend not to be in rigid social structures which force them to stay in marriage even when they are no longer happy or they feel that the relationship is no longer suitable. So yeah, when things don't work out, they get divorced instead of staying in a loveless marriage or staying together "for the kids" or staying together "because God will fuck me up if I divorce you".
So it's not that people in Group B are "better" at marriage. They're just more screwed when the shit hits the fan. Just kidding! To be fair, there is an argument that the cultural differences between the two groups bring about a more long-term view on the relationship (i.e. it's more about family and supporting each other than "love" and "happiness"). How good is that argument? I have no idea.
I'd link the actual study (and any related ones) but I no longer have access to the databases and I'm not gonna bother looking for it on the free stuff. IIRC the effect was only something lke 5% anyway. GG 50% divorce rate?
A very large number of religious groups are against separation of church and state in this form.
Which is stupid, because God never said anything about governments.
Not to YOU maybe.
The significance of that choice is much different when it's actually a choice. When you get a civil union it's an expression of hip liberalism and progressivism. When a person who can't marry gets a civil union, it expresses something else entirely: mostly, second-class status and a lack of social respect.
Even if you don't exercise it, the choice is itself liberating.
There are plenty of gays around that fight for the right to marry but have no intention to actually marry someone in the foreseeable future.
Thus you give gays the same rights without touching the sticky issue of forcing something onto someone even though it goes against their deep rooted religious beliefs.
"Hey, are those two married?"
"Nah, they're civil unioned"
"...oh"
"yeah"
I suppose, but I still feel like it's a slap in the face.