Chill your grill. It's an observation. Of course it's not good. I also voted no just like most everybody else with compassion.

Equality.

Goddamnit, how do people lose sight of this concept? Marriage is a time-honored tradition and will ALWAYS have more prestige than any union can ever attain. Also:



Doesn't sound so different, does it?

I disagree, equal rights for all means that even gays have a fundamental right as well to marriage. Now if the Christian churchs do not want to marry them "in the eyes of their God" so be it, they have that right as a private institutuion.  Gay people can go to a more open minded church or have a ceremony of their own chosing. But it is wrong to ban someone from a basic pursuit of happiness right just because someone else doesn't like them or agree with who they are. Giving them "Union Licenses" is saying to them "hey you are not as good as us and therefore do not deserve to be treated as equals", You end up making them 2nd class citizens.

Why can't the religious people keep marriages and gays have civil unions?  Marriage comes from religion to begin with, not from the state.  Why should the religious allow something they believe to be wrong to take part in something they hold dear?  The religious do not get marriage certificates to get married, they get it because they must for legal issues.  In their hearts, it is only what they believe (their religion) that really matters.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if you keep it out of my face and put no burden on me, go do your thing.  I do not care for public displays of affection, straight or gay.  I have stopped watching television shows that I loved and looked forward to weekly because they started having guys making out in them.  Did I scream at the network or rant about it, no, I chose to exercise my right to not look at it.

Let the religious have marriage, let gays have civil unions.

Civil unions are not second rate citizens, they are non-religious/practice religion that accepts gays.  In the end, everybody has the legal "benefits" and we can all move on.

Was this aimed at me?

simple and most constitutional answer would be the elimination of marriage liscences via the federal or state government, and only the issuance of a civil union. This I would believe to be the only constitutionally and ethically validated position to adopt. Level the playing field entirely, let all who choose to marry before their religion do so, and to all those who wish to marry before the eyes of the government do so as well.

 This solution prevents the issue that is already in place whereby a religious stance is mixed up with the state, plus allows the equality that this country at some hypothetical point WILL value.

 Any solution where sexual orientation or particular decrees of religion, color of skin or disposition in politics seperates the entitlement of one liscence or another is blatantly discriminatory. Now I'm in favor of some discrimination, but in no case should the government be empowered or entitled to be the discriminating body.

It's been said before in this thread, but I'll repeat it for the sake of this argument: despite it's roots in religion, marriage is a governmental tradition. You cannot be recognized married by the state until you go to the courthouse and sign the document. Hence, governmental. And, as further proof: tax breaks.

Therefore -> Equality.

You don't have to like it. But our forefathers made it so.



"Union License" as a term does not carry the honour or prestige associated with "Marriage License", regardless of what laws you move around. We're balancing legislation and public sentiment here.

And you can keep calling people "stupid" however many times you want, man. But that's not really productive towards a real solution.



See above. The government doesn't care about what's in your heart.



See above as well.

See above

I'd disagree with this. If they weren't granted the right to call themselves married, they wouldn't deign to use it. It would be a filth on the word, a constant demeaning and denigration of the one thing they actually seek.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Trying to create another word for it really just seems a way to circumvent a sticky issue without looking like a moral jerk to some people.

The advantage of a married couple is that by current definition married = straight, and straight = heaven and not hell.

God destroyed the city of Sodom. He fucked their shit up like there was no tomorrow. And then he said it was because it was a sin. A disgusting, horrible sin.

If only.



ahhh_crap speaks the truth, and I'm glad Endyss openly agrees with somebody for once without having to expound upon it (no personal attack, bro, you're just wordy and mouthy and assertive with your opinion... like me) but this is not a rational or probable solution. There's just no conceivable way this will ever fly, in any circle. It's the sad truth.

Wait what?
ahhhh_crap said essentially the same thing I did and you seemed to agree with him...

But I digress...
So you seriously think that it's signing a piece of paper called a "Marriage License" that has people up in arms about gay marriage "violating the sanctity of marriage"? I sure don't. Those people are thinking of family, sex, religion, etc. They aren't thinking about government recognition or tax breaks, or if they are then they're just being spiteful which I'd equate again to "stupid". And as far as "honor or prestige" goes... since when does the government have anything to do with that? My wife and I have our Marriage License on display because it represents our marriage - just like our rings do, and just like a "Union License" would. "A rose by any other name..." and so forth. If honor and prestige is contingent on a certain combination of two words alone, then that's pretty shallow, don't you think?