How about a special category : "heterosexual marriage".

[Smarmie Doofus]

I'm envisioning a constitutional amendment establishing a two-tiered system of marriage:

1. "marriage": available to any two adult human beings, homo, hetero or otherwise, who wish to enjoy the benefits (?) of the institution as it is currently constituted.

2. "heterosexual marriage": a new category available only to persons of opposite sexes who wish to reap the benefits of the institution and at the same time affirm, for whatever ( religious, psychological, political) reasons their heterosexual identity.

On the surface, at least, a workable solution. Bestows the benefits and responsibilities of marriage on L and G's. Pulls the rug out from the assortment of religious and political blowhards who are exploiting this issue. Provides political cover for finger-in-the-wind DEMS, like Hillary and Lieberman ( both renowned for their piety, BTW) to come over to the equal-rights -for-all side, (from the "sanctity of marriage" side) without taking any appreciable political risks. Who could fault them, after all, for providing "choices"?

OK, so what's wrong with this scheme? And why do I feel like a cross between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglass? ( Yes, I know that their compromises didn't work; but this one might.)

[BOSSHOG]

1. Heterosexual marriage can certainly be identified as the

number one threat to the sanctity of marriage. The divorce rate upon "christian conservatives" is a sight to behold and it can not be attributed to gay marriage.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Nonetheless, they are relentless in their pursuit....

of this issue.

Seems to me , if we constructed a special option for people like this, it might steal some of their thunder.... at no cost, reallly, to the beneficiaries of " marriage" ( which category would be open to anyone).

[BOSSHOG]

3. I believe they are relentless

because they are daily involved with self-hatred. It makes them feel good to lash out at others. It makes them feel good to hate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. They'll move on to another issue, without a doubt. But...

meantime, marriage will be defused as an issue. Since it's easily misrepresented and easily misunderstood, the debate as it stands now works FOR the other side and against the DEMS, particularly in the red states.

This is one possible means of turning that around.

[ThatsMyBarack]

4. Saw this bumper sticker once:

BAN CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE!

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. I wouldn't "ban" it. I would limit "Christian marraiges"....

to.... Christan *churches*, ( Call me 'crazy'!) where they belong.

Far as I know, they aren't agitating for this exactly ( Christian marriage) they're agitating for "heterosexuals-only" marriage.


Providing a special category for this... without conferring special *rights* ... would permit them to make whatever symbolic statement they want to make ( which seems to be: "My sexual orientation is better than yours !" ) without materially compromising the rights and benefits of any adult citizen, who would have full access to the 'marriage' category.

[sui generis]

7. eh. one system: civil marriage

that way they get to keep their precious word, but it's established as a basis for inheritance and property, since that's what it is.

Anyone care to show me a marriage license application that requires either party to be heterosexual, or (gasp) actually "in love"?

that's because all fifty states don't give a crap about love or your affectional orientation when it comes to marriage. All they care about is whether you're an inny or an outie, it seems.

Kind of like animal husbandry out on the farm.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Which is what we have already

Once the 14th Amendment required states to protect and abide by the First Amendment, it has been unconstitutional for any state to give special recognition or standing to a religious ceremony. ALL legal marriages are created by the filing of civil documents with the proper civil authorities.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Mind you, though...

As a special institution distinct from "marriage", none of the some 300 years of judicial interpretation or legal precedent would apply to "heterosexual marriage." In many states without explicit laws, people in a "heterosexual marriage" could not count on hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, presumption of power of attorney or inheritance, or any of the many additional rights, protections and privileges that courts, not legislatures, have said were part and parcel to "marriage."

While an amusing thought exercise, I would have to oppose "heterosexual marriage" for the exact same reasons I oppose "civil unions:" Both are entirely unequal to "marriage."

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Hence the need for a 'constitutional ammendment'...

>>>While an amusing thought exercise, I would have to oppose "heterosexual marriage" for the exact same reasons I oppose "civil unions:" Both are entirely unequal to "marriage.">>>>

Said amendment would specifically define marriage as I described... consistenting of two equal tiers, one open to all and the other open to people who wish to publicly identify as heterosexual as part of the marriage process. I'm no lawyer but, seems to me, the categories can be *made* equal via the amendment process.

If they can redefine marriage as ' solely between one man and one women' via the amendment process, why can't they redefine it in the way that I've described?

[Creideiki]

10. Then "Heterosexual Marriage" would get laden with benefits

while same-sex marriage is left behind. It would happen because they'd make the effort to force it to happen.

The ultimate solution is just recognizing that other people can be married and it doesn't mean anyone else has to "approve" of it. I know many straight married couples that I don't approve of for one reason or other. It doesn't mean that they're not entitled to make their own decisions (and in some cases, what I consider mistakes).

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Not necessarily.

>>>Then "Heterosexual Marriage" would get laden with benefits

while same-sex marriage is left behind. It would happen because they'd make the effort to force it to happen.>>>>

This would hard for them to achieve. The same sex marriages would be indistinguishable from opposite sex marriages in my "category 1". They are defined fully as "marriage"... entailing, by constitutional amendment, all the rights, privileges and responsibilities entailed by marriage as defined in the amendment.

>>>>>The ultimate solution is just recognizing that other people can be married and it doesn't mean anyone else has to "approve" of it. I know many straight married couples that I don't approve of for one reason or other. It doesn't mean that they're not entitled to make their own decisions (and in some cases, what I consider mistakes).>>>>>

Sure... this is the ideal situation; but it appears that this ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Something has to happen to break the political and psychological logjam. Public opinion appears more or less set and the way that it is set is not favorable to the progressive argument as we have heretofore framed it.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. I have a better idea . . .

.

I have a better idea . . . if marriage cannot be made available, legally, to other-than-straights, then the laws, both federal and states laws, that benefit married couples should be removed immediately from the law books. Why should straights, alone, benefit from these laws?

Yup. Seriously.

Why the hell should only one group of people sopped in "piety" and "values" and "morals" be the target of beneficial laws due to their marriage status while that same marriage status is prohibited from other groups of people? Seriously.

And, that is what this is all about. Laws. Benefits expressly written into our laws, federal and states, that only benefit marrieds. Yet prohibit marriage (thus those legal benefits) from other-than-straights.

1100 laws in each state plus another 1000 or so federal laws which benefit marrieds-only. Again, seriously.

This isn't about religion although it's targeted as such by religious institutions yelling for attention and money. Instead, it's about law. Statutes. Regulations. Grants of rights. Privileges. Legal benefits. That is, when all the trumped-up emotion is removed from the matrix.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. Absolutely. But this will *never* happen given the....

>>>if marriage cannot be made available, legally, to other-than-straights, then the laws, both federal and states laws, that benefit married couples should be removed immediately from the law books.>>>>>

hostility of the judiciary ( can you picture a SCOTUS made up of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and the rest acquiescing to the above?)

Seems to me what's called for now... given the general social and political climate... is a strategy under which the issue can be finessed, so to speak, without compromising on the principle involved : equal marriage rights for all.

Battling the RW's Marriage Amendment toe-to-toe on their terms is an error; we need to change the terms of the debate. Let's produce an amendment of our own that might be palatable to some of the less fanatical denizens of the anti-gay marriage ranks.

[Up2Late]

14. Now you're talkin'!

I love it!

I won't pretend to speak for all Heteros, but as a proud Liberal who's really sick and disgusted with all the homophobic's proposing to ban "gay marriage," I love the idea.

I have an even more radical proposal that I tried to introduce in GD, but got flamed a bit, but the subject of an future post.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. An important ancillary benefit !

>>>>, but as a proud Liberal who's really sick and disgusted with all the homophobic's proposing to ban "gay marriage,>>>>

It will take away... or at least lessen the appeal of... one of their pet issues.