Gay marriage compromise - would this work?

[shawn703]

Couldn't the government declare that since marriage is a religious institution, it will no longer perform them? The only thing a government would do is a civil union - which could be a heterosexual or homosexual union. If people wanted to get "married", they would have to do it in a church. The civil union would be strengthened though, making it equal in rights to today's marriage.

You could still have clergy that can marry you in the church and still fill out a civil union document you file with your state. Homosexual couples could just get a civil union and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples, or they could get married in an accepting church to satisfy their religious as well as legal needs.

That way, fundies couldn't complain about the government marrying homosexuals, because the government doesn't marry anyone. Let the denominations argue amongst themselves rather than make it a political issue.

This seems simple enough to me - so I must be missing something. Help me out!

[Bertha Venation]

1. Yep.

It would be a good compromise.

[cheezus]

2. bad idea, because it's obvious and makes too much sense

[cally]

3. LOL

Yep, it makes too much sense.

[terrya]

4. I think it's a great compromise. eom

[soleft]

5. It's perfect

[kiahzero]

6. Good idea, would never happen

Would be demagogued as "destroying traditional marriage."

[ThomWV]

7. What The Fuck Are You Talking about, "Compromise"?

There is nothing to compromise. We are a Constitutional Government in which homosexual people have the same rights as heterosexual people. PERIOD. Any change in law that has the effect of taking a rights from one group that is available to another group is UN-AMERICAN. There is no compromise to be made, none what so ever. To suggest that one might be desirable is to show the beast of bigotry.

[JayS]

9. I want the government out of the marriage business entirely.

There will of course be tax implications and more legal documents to be kept but that sounds preferable to me.

[truthspeaker]

17. why should government keep out of a civil contract?

That's like saying government should stay out of the driver's-license-issuing business.

[ThomWV]

21. Nonsense

This isn't a civil contract, it is the first step in denying Civil Contracts, such as the ability to own property, maybe the right to vote, let me see, what other rights did Hitler take from the Jews before the gas chambers? This is just the first step, make no mistake about that. This isn't a slippery slope that you might step onto or over by accident, this is more like an olympic ski jump slope, if you step on board you are going to fall. Get the notion that anyone group can be singled out and discriminated against out of your head. It is dead wrong. You deny gay persons the right to marry the next in line will be the black people, then people who believe in a non-state-sanctioned religion. By the way, taking a drivers license does not constitute a civil contract between the state and an individual any more than stopping at a stop sign does.

[JayS]

22. To me it seems that the government no longer views it as just...

...a civil contract. It is almost like they are trying to act like a church or something. To me, since I am over eighteen, I should be able to enter into about whatever civil contract I want.

I do wish that the government would stay out of the driver's-license-issuing business because their pictures suck. :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. I just wish you could renew goddamn drivers licenses online.

Since they ain't open on the weekends, and during the week they close at 4:30 :grr:

[MercutioATC]

13. Perhaps "compromise" was a poor word to use. "Solution" is better.

Were there ONE vehicle (civil union) to grant legal status to a couple, be they straight or gay and a separate vehicle (marriage) that carried no legal status, but could be performed by religious institutions at their option, I believe that would solve the problem.

[truthspeaker]

18. there is no problem to be solved, except bigotry

This is a few social conservatives trying to define what marriage is for eveyone else, even though they already have a constitutional right to define what marriage is in their religious institution. We do not need to compromise with these bigots or devise a "solution" to a problem that is only in their twisted little heads.

[MercutioATC]

19. I'm not arguing, I'm looking for a practical solution.

Separating the religious and legal components of the process uniting two people seems a good solution to me.

[truthspeaker]

20. but they are ALREADY SEPARATE

Any government discussion of marriage deals ONLY with the civil aspect.

[MercutioATC]

24. The problem is that they're NOT separate if they have the same name.

(marriage)...at least not in people's minds. Why not clarify the issue?

[shawn703]

26. Read the post. not just the title

I said we would increase the rights associated with a civil union to make it equal with today's marriage. I also said that the government should no longer perform marriages for homosexuals OR heterosexuals. They could only perform civil unions for either type of couple. How is this taking "rights from one group that is available to another group"? Seems to me that both groups are being treated the same.

The compromise I was referring to is homosexual couples get the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples. In return, the legal union is no longer termed a "marriage" so fundies couldn't try and say the government is trying to undermine their religious institution.

If you are stating that you think this idea is meant to take marriage away from homosexuals that's not true at all. There are churches that will provide that religious service to homosexual couples. If you think the government should force the Southern Baptist church to marry homosexual couples - that's wrong. Religion should not interfere in government, and government should not interfere in religion.

[Warpy]

8. Some churches will perform homosexual marriages

and fundy churches will have a real problem with that. Their pet gummint officials will try to get the tax exempt status of liberal churches pulled, like that screwball woman in Texas tried to do to the Unitarians.

The truth is that they have only two choices: either get gummint out of the business of enforcing the marriage contract (including divorce, property settlement and child custody) or extend the ability to enter into that contract to all adults nutty enough to consent to it.

Churches can do what they like, but a legal contract is just that, and should be open to all.

[MercutioATC]

10. That's exactly what I've been saying for years.

Legal union = civil union

Religious union = marriage

Civil unions wouldn't have to be recognized by religious institutions and marriages would have no legal status (taxes, inheritence, insurance, etc.).

[thecrow]

11. DOMA

covers the FMA already, IMO:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " Defense of Marriage Act" .

SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AFTER SECTION 1738B THE FOLLOWING:

"1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".
*************************************************
The Republicans are wasting the time of Congress

[GiovanniC]

14. Yes, But This Could Be Overturned

For being unconstitutional. Equal protection, equal rights, and states' rights.

But if they amend the constitution, it can't be unconstitutional.

They'll fail at amending the constitution, but that isn't the point right now. The point is to separate people into one of two categories. Pro-gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage.

The pro-gay marriage people will be on the Democratic side.

The anti-gay marriage people will be on the Republican side.

They're banking on the likelihood that more people will fall into the "anti" category than the "pro" category.

This debate wouldn't be going on if this wasn't an election year.

[sherrem]

12. the problem I see

is not about a homosexual union being called a "marriage". Its about the rights those people recieve upon getting married. I honestly don't think anyone in government could give a rat's behind about people getting "married", its about those people getting social security, health insurance, etc.

At BEST I can see the government saying "Ok, anyone can get married, but only the heterosexuals get the benefits". The problem with that is, its not PC. It then becomes blatant "for no reason" discrimination, not "because the bible says so" discrimination. When you pick and choose which parts of the bible you'd like to follow, its just *so* much easier to live with yourself.

[truthspeaker]

15. No, because marriage is both a civil and religious institution

I am so sick of this lie. Religions did not invent marriage and they do not have a monopoly on it. Government handles the civil aspects of marriage. Because we live in a free country, people may choose to add a religious aspect to their marriages, but government is not and has never been concerned with that.

Note that churches, synagogues, and mosques already have a constitutional right to refuse to marry anyone they want. Catholic churches won't marry divorced people, for example.

[SheilaT]

16. In one way we already have that

system in place. You're not legally married in the eyes of the civil government if you don't have your license in order. The religious part of the ceremony is highly optional.

Already many religious groups are quite fussy about who they'll wed to each other. My husband and I, nearly 24 years ago, had a great deal of difficulty finding a member of the clergy of the religion we wanted to be married in because one of us was not of that faith. Eventually we found one, and raised our kids in that religion. As annoying as that was, the religion in question was fully within its rights to pick and chose whom to marry.

And meanwhile, lets issue licenses to all who legally qualify for them, but not restricting it to one man and one woman. Although I think restricting it to two people is a good idea.

[JayS]

23. "Although I think restricting it to two people is a good idea."

I don't want this restriction as I want to marry both Jennifer Anniston and Sandra Bullock and I JUST CAN'T CHOOSE WHICH ONE! :)

[apnu]

25. its good and happens to be...

... one of the few "good" things Nader has said. He stated that comment last weekend on CNN w/ Wolf "I'm a puppet" Blitzer.

[IronLionZion]

27. That would be way too sensible

I would support that, but remember that this amendment HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GAYS OR MARRIAGE!!! It's just a way for the Republicans to rally the base and turn them out full force in November.

They're just playing politics that's all. Neo-cons don't give a shit if gays get married. Well maybe Rick Santorum does, but not many others.

And the real reason Rick is against gay marriage is because if it becomes legal, he may be tempted to do it!

[yvr girl]

29. Many European countries operate this way

There are civil ceremonies which grant the legal status. Then people can choose to have a religious ceremony (or not.)