I read an interesting viewpoint somewhere else. Why not make all govt recognized "marriages" civil unions. Grant everyone the same rights under the eyes of the law, and leave "marriage" for the religious bodies?
If gay marriage is accpeted then so should polygamy
- Thread starter Ethnic Vagina Finder
- Start date
In order to fight for those rights, they'd have to fight to get over 1000 laws re-written or altered. It's much easier and it makes more sense to just fight for equal marriage rights.
They are currently trying to use one case to change an entire precedent and to make gay marriage a federal thing.
There are already states that recognize and have laws to give rights to gay couples... so they could have pushed to have those ideas forced onto the nation.. then all they would have to to is push for government benefits and tax breaks.... aka just add the word union to existing laws. That would have been an easier and really a sneaker way of doing the sh1t. Instead they shoot themselves in the foot and try to change entire definitions.
Its too piecemeal this way. And the civil unions for everybody thing could backfire too. A lot of anti-gay folks would flip it to say the govt shouldn't infringe on their rights to marry in the eyes of the law to appease the gays. I do think the govt def. of marriage should be separated from (and called something different from) religious marriage though.
Straight marriage is a "federal thing"
It's not as easy as adding the word union to existing laws. Each individual law would have to be addressed and changed. Individual companies would have to go back and change their policies. Most states would have to change their constitutions. That is an impossible task and its one that American citizens shouldn't have to fight in order to get equal rights.
I have no problem with this. If marriage is a historically religious institution, then it falls under a violation of "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" in my opinion. I don't know if this is really feasible but ... yeah.
ThatTruth777
Superstar
Should same-sex couples be able to adopt?
I've been saying this for years. Actually, it's a very popular viewpoint on the left, and among honest (which is to say, not Ron Paul) right libertarians, too. The only people who oppose it would be explicitly religious conservatives who would see it as part of the push towards secularization, but then, they would have no standing in court, since having religious overtones sneak into a legal category as we have was a travesty in the first place.
Marriage was here before religion
Because homosexuals want to get married in churches and encroach on religious practices.
Some of them might, but that's not the point of the gay marriage movement. The point is to get access to rights that marriages give that civil unions don't. They're not allowed to "encroach on religious practices" because the government is not allowed to legislate marriage as a religious category, only as a legal category. It's religious idiots trying to force their religion into the secular, legal category, not the other way around.
This gay marriage thing isn't about forcing churches to perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Churches are private entities and don't have to do anything.
So if there was a bill to allow churchs to be exposed to discrimination lawsuits if they dont marry homos, would you be for or against it? Or would u just not care and not vote.
That they are protected from laws that apply to all other non-profit organizations is silly TBH. The Lord doesn't discriminate, why should His churches?
And thats why ill always vote down gay right props. Because homosexuals dont know their boundaries.