I modestly propose a ban on ALL marriage.

[leftofthedial]

there should be no official status called marriage for anybody.

[librechik]

1. I agree. civil unions between consenting adults only.

any other "marriage" type ceremony is the business of your church, and not legal per se.

[Merlot]

2. Works for me

works for my SO too.

[begin_within]

3. Or at least make it only a 6-month term that has to be renewed.

Too many people remain in bad marriages.

[Recursion]

6. "We will breed every 7 years, like the Vulcans, that most logical race...

...for most of you, this will mean less sex. For me, it will mean much, much more."

--Comic Book Guy

[begin_within]

20. lol

[Wapsie B]

7. Yes, that sounds good to me.

[JackBeck]

4. Why wasn't this discussed as an option

When people were trying to overturn miscegenation laws?

Why is it ONLY when the LGBT community asks for equality, all of a sudden we're having a conversation about overturning all marriages and replacing them with civil unions?

[IndianaJones]

8. i'll kill my marriage before i let gays have it. nt.

[JackBeck]

32. I modestly propose that you move forward with this plan. n/t

[drmeow]

31. Feminists have been talking about this

for almost 40 years.

[JackBeck]

33. Loving v. Virginia

was over 40 years ago.

[drmeow]

34. My point is that it is not

"... ONLY when the LGBT community asks for equality" that this has been discussed or come up.

[blm]

5. Yep - Civil unions for all. I don't believe in religion so why believe in religious marriages?

.

[ensho]

9. agree

marriage was a way men could control women and the children they produced.

remember, women used to be men's Legal Property, with no rights of their own.

[MindPilot]

16. and now it's the other way around

or at least it looks that way to any man who's been through a divorce.

[crazylikafox]

10. Yea, tell all the haters that the push for gay marriage really did destroy heterosexual marriage.

That's really smart. :sarcasm:

That's what they've been preaching about for years. You wanna make that come true??

[verges]

41. It doesn't destroy marraige!

If a couple wants to be married, all they have to do is find an accommodating church. That falls into Religious Freedom under the First Amendment.

It becomes a separation of church and state issue.

[crazylikafox]

49. I actually agree with you. But..

I think that idea needs to be framed in a way that doesn't make it sound like we're "outlawing" marriage. Anybody can "enhance" the civil ceremony by stopping by the church of their choice for the dog and pony show.

[mondo joe]

11. Your proposal is philisophical masturbation. It does nothing for real people who today are denied

equal civil rights.

[leftofthedial]

17. you say that like masturbation is a bad thing

[mondo joe]

22. Masturbation is a great thing.

But let's not mistake it for a serious substitute for addressing inequality under the law. :-)

[leftofthedial]

42. I can see that it might not happen,

but I do not see how it fails to address inequality under the law.

[verges]

43. I disagree.

It levels the playing field and confers equal rights on all.

If all couples are required to get a CU, where is the inequality? If a "Marraige" is what is truly desired, after the CU, go to a church and get a non-legally binding wedding. You then have a marraige and equal legal rights. As an additional dividend, we separate a legal status from a religious service.

[mondo joe]

50. But it's not going to happen.

It's just hypothetical talk - not a real or plausible solution.

[verges]

51. Nothing happens overnight. nt

[Justitia]

12. I like what France does - Civil Services for everyone, addt'l religious svcs if desired.

Doesn't Britain do the same thing also?

Everybody has to be married by the municipal authorities to be valid, you can add on a church service if you like.

I was married by a Justice of the Peace in a beautiful outdoor ceremony at a hotel (it doesn't have to be at City Hall).

[JackBeck]

15. I like what Belgium, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and the Netherlands does.

Same-sex marriage.

And Sweden will most likely be added to that list in 2009.

[Justitia]

23. Oh, me too. I like the idea of everybody having a civil svc to be legal, religion is the extra.

I think it makes the point that "marriage" is a civil, legal right (and therefore must be available to ALL citizens), but the religion part of it is "extra", "optional", because it is arbitrary.

Marriage definitely conveys legal, civil rights - it must be transacted by the State and free from discrimination.

Churches do not convey legal, civil rights. They should have no civil authority in State business.

[MindPilot]

13. I heard one legal expert say that might be the outcome;

in order to restore equality, they may have to make all marriage "illegal" not just same sex marriages.

[verges]

45. Marraige wouldn't become "illegal."

It would simply cease to have a legal status.

[MindPilot]

52. Yes, that's why I put "illegal" in "quotes"

I was trying to keep the number of words to a minimum...thanks for clarifying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Two problems with that.

1) People who oppose gay marriage will oppose it even more fervently than they oppose gay marriage.

2) People who support gay marriage won't support it as much as they support gay marriage, and many (probably most) will actually oppose it.

So it's pretty much a non-starter, thankfully.

People want to get married. They don't want to enter into civil unions. So something that sounds like telling them that they can't (this *isn't* exactly telling them that they can't, I realise, but it *does* sound like it is) is a dumb idea.

[leftofthedial]

21. make it a purely religious, not legal/governmental, arrangement

continue to allow religious marriages.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. You *could* campaign for that ,but it would be a dumb thing to do.

It would please almost no-one more than campaiging for gay marriage, and many people less, so it's a strictly worse solution.

[leftofthedial]

48. and one that works in many countries.

we could campaign for any number of unpopular things and make this a better country. But we'd better not, huh?

[verges]

47. Under Civil Unions, NOTHING* can stop

anyone from getting married. All they have to do is find a friendly church. (*BTW a church cannot be forced to marry anybody they don't want too by virtue of the First Amendment. But there will be many churches that would be willing.)


" 1) People who oppose gay marriage will oppose it even more fervently than they oppose gay marriage."

What rationalization do you feel they could use? Tha sanctity of God's holy whatever. And God's plan that marraige equal one man, one woman. would be completely nullified. If there is no religious connotation implied with a CU, what could they possibly argue?

[Gwendolyn]

53. Civil unions suck. which is why gay people want to be married like everyone else.

[verges]

54. I agree that equal rights are important.

I disagree that Civil Unions (Partnerships, whatever) are bad. Please don't get angry yet and bear with me as I make my case:

Marraige, as it currently exists, has a schizophrenic nature. It is a dual institution. It is a civil status that confers many and various legal rights and entitlements.

It also is a religious institution, conferring sanctification by Church and God. This aspect should have NO connection at all with the first above mentioned form of marraige.

The fundies feel (or more accurately, say they feel) that the Civil Marraige bleeds over to affect the meaning of the Religious Marraige.

Once again, we have let them frame the argument. By changing the name of the first meaning of Marraige, we disarm them. We cannot eradicate their hate by Law. Societal pressure, perhaps. But not by Law. Any Church will still be able to deny Marraige to anyone they choose. That's a First Amendment right. However, many Churches would also be accomodating, and marry any and all comers.

By splitting these two diverse meanings, no one is prevented from getting married. To get Married, all you have to do is find a willing Church. This is because Marraige would have no legal status whatsoever. Of course, a couple would not then have the legal rights endowed by the Civil status. If you call the Civil Marraige something else, you've defeated the legal definition of Marraige because Marraige is a covenant with God argument.

In essence: people (straight or gay) who want the legal rights and the term "Marraige" would simply have to go through two procedures. Much like they do now. Getting the License and going throught the ceremony. Frankly, it seems odd to me that a Government issued license is required for a Religious ceremony.

As for downgrading current Marraiges, it would be simple to "Grandfather " in any legal Religious or Civil ceromony before a certain date.

As far as I can tell, this solution levels the field and quiets the fundies argument.

[Gwendolyn]

57. I wouldn't get angry...we're just talkin'

:)

Civil unions were invented some years back in cheap attempt to placate a growing voice, but they confer almost none of the benefits that civil marriage does. Please bear with me as well.


Medical Decisions:

1. Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
2. Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.


Death Benefits:

1. Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
2. Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death.


Child Support:

1. Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses
2. Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.


Those are just 3 of the differences, but there are many, many of them. Under a civil union scenario, every state must ratify its own version, rendering what might be legal in one, illegal in another. If you plan to have a child under the blessings of a civil union, you better be prepared to either be completely financially responsible, or on the other hand, face never seeing the child again, in the event the relationship is severed. No help from federal sources at all!

No other country in the world advocates civil unions. They ALL offer civil MARRIAGE, with all benefits observed across the board, from country to country. People keep thinking Europa works under the civil union model. They do not!!!

If the "issue" is the word "marriage" and all you're basically advocating is keep everything civil marriage currently affords people... just change the name of it, well that's a little like a bunch of us saying we no longer want to be called "women" as the implication is that we are of "men." It's not helpful.

This approach won't fool anyone, and certainly won't change a single, solitary little thing to appease the fundie groups. And, it's a turn-off/insult to everyone else who likes the institution of marriage, gay and straight folk alike. People who don't like marriage, can simply opt to live together.

[verges]

58. I do see what you are saying. But,

the CU's I would suggest would confer ALL the rights of a current marraige. It actually becomes a separation of church and state issue. The state should get out of the marraige business altogether. CU's should apply to all domestic partnerships straight or gay. Marraige should be relegated to a religious ceremony where it actually belongs.

[Gwendolyn]

59. So what you're espousing is civil marriage under a different name.

As I said. :) And you think that simply by changing the "name" of the institution, there will be some miraculous change in attitude? I don't believe so. A rose by any other name, etc...

But all that aside, with the exception of Canada, other countries already are in the business of requiring an official civil marriage. Religious service remains a voluntary icing on the cake. That seems like a much more practical solution.

[treestar]

18. Good idea. Relegate it to religion/custom

entirely.

[kevinbgoode]

19. I think ALL couple's "rights" should be stripped away

and ALL legal adults be afforded the same legal access to controlling their property - and their lives as they CHOOSE - NOT as the Church or the government (functioning as an extension of the Church) defines. Enough of this religious tyranny being used to violate the constitutional rights of all citizens by creating a separate class of "married" people - and then not requiring any of them to uphold their vows.

[RadicalTexan]

56. What he said.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[ismnotwasm]

24. Actually that's true

It's basically an outdated ownership institution that had to do with political expediency and breeding. Probably evolved to keep the male side of the population secure, the female side were often simply commodities.

I like the idea of partnership contracts, call them marriage if you will, for a pre-agreed length of time. Open, honest and kind. As well as for the fire we call love, of course.

However, I married for a number of reasons, love yes, but we had a blended family, and to make a long story short, thought it was the right thing to do for all those kids and each other. We still do.

I want Gays to have the same options I do in our current society and I want to see the end of heteronormativity. Anything less is a human rights violation and a disgusting state of affairs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Yes There Should.

[Toasterlad]

26. Gay People Will Be Married Long Before Straight Couples Get Civil Unionized

I can't believe how tired I am of this stupid argument.

1) Civil unions are not marriage, and never will be. That is, they will never carry the legal, societal, and emotional connotations of marriage. That's why straighty won't go for them, and why we won't settle for them.

2) If we called the drinking fountains "unity waterfalls", do you think the racists would have been cool with sharing them with the black folk?

[Bryn]

28. Sounds good. I have been married and divorced 3 times!

Before I finally quit marriage stuff in 1984, have stayed single since then. LOL

[drmeow]

29. My thoughts

Revise all the various laws and statutes connected to marriage to better reflect the realities American families today (mostly having to do with money - taxes, social security, inheritance - but also kinship and others including addressing "common law contracts").

Create a few varieties of standard "kinship" contracts or contract templates for people to use

Provide a transition period (a year?) during which all current married couples will be required to select/write a kinship contract and no new marriage licenses will be issued (they will all have to sign kinship contracts).

Require religious organizations to confirm the existence of a signed kinship contract or have their standard contract to sign prior to (or immediately after as it is now) performing weddings (to protect the vulnerable from the exploitative since without a standard marriage contract there could be a lot of abuse - not that there isn't abuse now but I could see it getting worse).

Eliminate the legal status of marriage and allow organizations to define marriage for their members any way they want as long as the relationship includes a kinship contract.

I just came up with this right now so I'm sure there are things I've missed.

[Booster]

30. This issue could be put to rest by not having special benefits for

ANYBODY - either we all have benefits, or no one does.

[kenny blankenship]

35. Are you trying to get us killed?

[readmoreoften]

36. Awesome. So you won't be able to visit the partner you love in the hospital either!

Congrats! Everyone dies alone! Or with their Republican brother-in-law!

[RichardRay]

60. Two points...

1) Everyone dies alone. If you haven't realized that yet then get started now. It will make things a lot easier later on.

2) If you want to be present when someone is dieing in the hospital (for whatever purpose) there are myriad ways to insure that that is possible that do not include 'marriage'. It just takes a little forethought. Start thinking about it now.

[carlyhippy]

37. then there will be no alimony

Carly

[AndyTiedye]

38. "The State Shall Make No Laws Regarding Marriage"

How about that?

To properly preserve the separation of church and state, the civil component of marriage shall be defined as "civil union",
all civil rights currently connected with "marriage" shall accrue to such civil unions. All current marriages registered
with the state or counties shall be redefined as civil unions, and the "marriage license" will also be replaced with a "civil union".

The rite of marriage will thus be unambiguously outside the domain of the state.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Or how about....

leave it inside the domain of the state where it already unambiguously resides and provide equal access.

I cannot say I am surprised but I certainly am dismayed to see so many here so quick to capitulate to bigots.

[leftofthedial]

44. works for me

I never understood the role of government in it anyway. People can do their spiritual bonding thing in the church (or absence thereof) of their choice and can join in any kind of contractual partnership they desire. It doesn't require government sanction. The whole thing is an archaic artifact of feudalism and days when church and state were even more one than they are now.

[Shardik]

39. It would certainly put a stop to divorce rates.

:)

Like many have said before, I think everyone should have the right to be miserable.

[baby_mouse]

46. This isn't actually terribly helpful.

Though I know you are trying to help, this really isn't very helpful.

[RadicalTexan]

55. I totally agree.

If you want a religious, sacramental marriage, you can still have a church wedding/marriage.

I think we should do away with government-sanctioned romantic relationships/economic arrangements and just let people choose who their next of kin is. This way, someone like me who is 30 and unmarried could put my 60 year old uninsured mother on my health insurance. I feel as if I am being denied a massive benefit because I haven't met the right person, or choose not to enter into a government-sanctioned sex exchange.