Recommended Posts
My solution: Call ANY non-religious, court performed marriage a "civil union" and let any two consenting adults participate. Let "marriage" be a term for a union performed by a religious official, and the folks who choose "marriage" would still need a "civil" ceremony to obtain the legal status. Church and state remain appropriately separate, so liberals can't gripe, and "marriage" remains "protected" and churches remain free to discriminate as they see fit, so conservatives can't complain either.
wmw999 2,583
QuoteWhile I have not had to alter any part of my life because of all of this, that day is coming. WHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.
If you had kids, they very possibly would already have friends who had two daddies (or, more likely, two mommies -- and I'll bet most people find that less distasteful for no particularly good reason). It's just that the parents have to teach their children to lie and hide what their family is like. Now there's family values!
You can ground your children in what you think is important. It's much better to point them towards things than away from them. Really. If you're a devout bonk-bonkist, then bring them up in the religion, and tell them why it's good. Don't tell them that people who aren't bonk-bonks are bad -- someday they'll discover that they aren't all bad.
And some day the protected children might discover that their friends do have two daddies, and that they bring better cookies to school, too.
And if you're hoping that this means your kids will never grow up to be homosexual, well, it's not something you choose from what I hear. Would you really your kids (and I don't mean you in particular, since you don't have kids) grew up to be unhappy heterosexually married people than happy, fulfilled partners in a gay relationship? Whose life is it, anyway?
Wendy W.
QuoteWHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.
That is already a possibility. There are plenty of gay fathers and mothers out there that have custody of their children.
QuoteI would have to modify my will to expressly forbid my children to ever have legal guardians who were same sex in the event of mine and my wife's passing.
You would have to do that now. Gay couples are allowed to adopt and be foster parents.
QuoteThese are only a couple things that come to mind, but they are the kind of issues I shouldn't have to worry about.
You already have to worry about these things if they concern you. Giving legal standing to relationships that already exist anyway, won't make a difference.
If you have children they will have eyes. Eventually, they will observe a healthy, un-closeted homosexual couple holding hands, and they will question you about it. And later on, should they find themselves in a situation where they question their own sexuality, they will remember your response to them years ago. That response could make the difference between your child having an open conversation with you, and your child committing suicide because he or she fears they will never be accepted by you for who they are.
goose491 0
Quote
My solution: Call ANY non-religious, court performed marriage a "civil union" and let any two consenting adults participate. Let "marriage" be a term for a union performed by a religious official, and the folks who choose "marriage" would still need a "civil" ceremony to obtain the legal status. Church and state remain appropriately separate, so liberals can't gripe, and "marriage" remains "protected" and churches remain free to discriminate as they see fit, so conservatives can't complain either.
Kris, I could kiss ya! (but not marry you

This isn't far from my concept... it's much more feasible though I think.
In the states eyes, two consenting adults in "civil union" would mean the same as a man and woman in "marriage". They can be treated the same pollitically. However, to both couples, their union is still specific/tailored/special to them.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Michele 1
Leiberman is against it, according to an interveiw I just heard...but anywhere does it state who has been for/against it?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
quade 4
QuoteCurious as to the other candidates' position on gay marriage? Anyone know?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/elec04.prez.dems.gay.marriage/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.civil.html
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Michele 1
From the first link:
"Indeed, of the nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination, six say they do not support gay marriage -- Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and the front-runner, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.
Only three are on record supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Sen. Carole Moseley Braun of Illinois. All three are considered long shots for the nomination."
So, it would seem that most candidates are against GL marriages, whereas they *may* support civil unions, and would leave it to the state to make that particular decision.
That's interesting. The only three who are for full marriage rights for same sex couples do not have a chance in hell of winning the primaries, let alone the election.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
quade 4
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Michele 1
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
While I have not had to alter any part of my life because of all of this, that day is coming. WHen I have kids and they attend a school with a child with 2 daddys and I have to explain that to my kids- well lets just say that I will make sure that I never have to face that.
I would have to modify my will to expressly forbid my children to ever have legal guardians who were same sex in the event of mine and my wife's passing.
These are only a couple things that come to mind, but they are the kind of issues I shouldn't have to worry about.
Edited top add: I knew this was a waste of time. Reminds me of the recent repost of "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics....". You know the rest. Cya
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites