This thread is inspired by another: view original post
It's so God damn easy I don't get why no one thought of this yet. I posted this earlier a few months back but I think it was ignored. Before you start flaming me for my warped view of reality, at least read the whole thing
Give Civil Unions the same benefits as Marriage, and let Heterosexual couples be allowed to have Civil Unions. That would eliminate any "Separate but Equal" bullshit out of the water. But wait, there's more! Legalize Gay Marriage across the country, but let individual churches choose whether or not to accept the marriages. If Gay couples really wanted marriage they should have no problem finding a small local church to hold their wedding, and if they cant find a church to approve of it, there is always a Government equivalent with the same benefits.
Bam! Boom! Solved. Where's my medal?
-
6 Replies in this Sub-Thread[quote]That would eliminate any "Separate but Equal" bullshit out of the water. [/quote]No it doesn't. Do you know WHY separate but equal was declared unconstitutional? I didn't until I started to study law. It is because separate is INHERENTLY unequal- unconstitutional. It isn't a matter of keeping the rights the same. In regards to blacks vs. whites, if colored bathrooms were just as pristine as white bathrooms, it STILL would be unconstitutional. This is because the Supreme Court said the reason separate but equal is unconstitutional is because by separating the two things, you are inherently saying they are different and one thing is 'worse' than the other so it has to be kept separate. The only reason colored people had to be separate was because they were 'less' than white people. This caused a psychological difference between the two and that psychological effect on the minds of colored people meant they could not be equal after all. In other news... [quote]Give Civil Unions the same benefits as Marriage, and let Heterosexual couples be allowed to have Civil Unions.[/quote]In the Wisconsin State Constitution at least, it is illegal to have Civil Unions have the same rights as Marriage. The term used is anything 'substantially similar' to marriage in a domestic partnership is unconstitutional because in the state constitution marriage is strictly between a man and woman- that is specified directly in the law. Therefore gay rights activists in the state have to defend domestic partnerships between two tracts: Both that the rights are different enough that domestic partnership should be allowed, and that the process into which you ENTER a domestic partnership is different enough to allow it to exist. If either of those two things were the same, domestic partnership could be completely eliminated in the state. So your act would actually STOP 'gay marriage,' not promote it. [quote]let individual churches choose whether or not to accept the marriages.[/quote]And just to add, to enter a domestic partnership all you have to do, again at least in Wisconsin though I imagine it extends elsewhere, is to live with the other person for 30 days, one of the parties must live in the county you'll be married in for the few days, and sign a piece of paper. No church or marriage needed.
-
[quote]It's funny because that legitimately is an excuse a 5 year old would use, and it hurts your argument just as much as anything else. [/quote]You could have just linked your counter argument and not resorted to an Ad Hominem. Not to mention he doesn't fully counter the argument, he even brings up examples of Urinettes, and factors that can't be considered, like how long it takes for a woman to go, They just stereotypes the notion that men obviously have it easier. [quote]Your idea is bad because of the law, not because I think it's bad.[/quote]Except it gives everyone what they want. Claiming that it's wrong because of the "Separate but Equal" clause doesn't make sense simply because it's establishing what we already know. It's a Gay Marriage, that doesn't make it any less of a "marriage". I don't see how it puts it into a "Separate but Equal" doctrine just by calling it what it is. It's still a marriage to everyone's eyes no matter how you look at it, and that's all they want. Everyone just says it's just like any other marriage except there's two husbands/wives instead of one. [quote]There are many legal and economic benefits to marriage.[/quote]And with this, there would be legal benefits to Civil Unions, exactly the same is Marriage. It's a simple choice of preference. The problem is that I want to start removing the benefits from marriage because the Government shouldn't be involved in it. Would you still complain if Civil Unions had more benefits than Marriage? Seriously, I can't support a system that just gives benefits to marry couples, they obviously want something in return, thus defeating the point of marriage. [quote]That is not your call, and that is not enforceable at all anyways.[/quote]They're cheating the system, I don't think the Government is too happy about that. Once again, what do they want? [quote]Marriage IS a government system. Not a religious one. [/quote]The only thing the Government should have a say in Marriage is actually marrying the two people. They should not be giving benefits to them, it just creates moochers and cheaters of the system. The point of Marrying someone is not to get a bunch of easy benefits, especially when most of them can be achieved without it. Once again, [u]what is the point in these benefits?[/u] Why is the Government doing this? Out of the kindness of their heart? Please give me a real reason.
-
[quote]Not to mention he doesn't fully counter the argument, [/quote]So he 'partially' counters it? Exactly what 'portion' of an argument do you have to debunk for it to no longer be valid? I can toss you some more straws if you want. [quote]Except it gives everyone what they want. Claiming that it's wrong because of the "Separate but Equal" clause doesn't make sense simply because it's establishing what we already know.[/quote]What somebody WANTS doesn't matter when both the law and the supreme court state that according to the constitution it cannot happen. Again: What you suggest is inherently against the constitution. That is not up for debate. That's expressly written. Your idea is 'wrong' because of the Separate but Equal judgement. Period. [quote]It's still a marriage to everyone's eyes no matter how you look at it, and that's all they want. Everyone just says it's just like any other marriage except there's two husbands/wives instead of one. [/quote]Again, it's because you're making a distinction. You're saying that one thing is not good enough or shouldn't be allowed into something simply because of what it is- regardless of whose choice that is. Therefore you are causing a psychological difference which according to the Supreme Court means it is inherently unequal even though it is separate. That is the very basis of the judgement. [quote]And with this, there would be legal benefits to Civil Unions, exactly the same is Marriage.[/quote]Which would automatically mean domestic partnerships would be outlawed because they are substantially similar to marriage which is expressly against some state constitutions. Poof- you've just stopped the possibility of gays ever having sanctioned relationships ever again. [quote] The problem is that I want to start removing the benefits from marriage because the Government shouldn't be involved in it. [/quote]Marriage is a government tool first, a religious tool second. [quote]Would you still complain if Civil Unions had more benefits than Marriage?[/quote]Uh... yes. That would still cause the exact same problem except it would actually affect me. Of course I would complain that's a ridiculous question. [quote] Seriously, I can't support a system that just gives benefits to marry couples, they obviously want something in return, thus defeating the point of marriage. [/quote]Unfortunately it isn't your choice what the 'point' of marriage is.
-
-