Idea on Solution Marriage Equality Debate

While I favor the total removal of government from marriage, I recognize that the concept would be difficult in implementation. With that in mind, I have an idea that I would like to hear opinions on from people of all political ideologies. What if the government dropped the terms marriage and civil unions and called them and all other similar legal relations "unions", and allowed people to call their union whatever they like, but used only "union" legally.

"Unions" would serve as a blanket term for the union of any consensual couple, regardless of gender, orientation, faith, and even number of people involved in the union. I understand that it wouldn't solve the issue many conservatives have with state rights, but would those that do find it to be a better solution than using the word "marriage" as the blanket term? I'm calling for people all across the political spectrum to give their opinion on this.

 

No solution needed. Problem already solved. It is all "marriage" End of story.

 

But don't you think calling it a "union" would settle a lot of issues between the parties? While not everyone agrees with what constitutes marriage, it'd be difficult to argue what a union is. Then everyone would be free to call their union whatever they wanted in their personal life.

 

I would be okay with this. I don't care what you call it, as long as it's equal across the board. I'm not married to the word marriage nor do I think that the act of marriage is owned by religions.

However, this won't do much to stop anything because the people who say they don't want it to be called marriage only say that because it's a cliched way of saying homosexuality bothers you without having to say that outright. If you've paid attention to this issue or know anything about American laws and customs, you know that secular marriage and religious marriage are two entirely separate things here. Neither implies the other nor controls the other. That's why you could get married in a church everyday for a year and not a single one of them would count for the government if you didn't have a marriage certificate.

So it's just a smokescreen really. A way of opposing homosexuality without having to say you oppose homosexuals or even their right to get "married". You can just pretend it's all about the word used to describe it.

EDIT: I wasn't implying that the OP is this way, just that it would be a meaningless thing for the people who say that they personally are opposed to calling it marriage.

 

That seems like a logical solution to me. Since the terms of "marriage" are defined by the religious establishment, I always thought it was a bad idea for the government to be involved in deciding what is (or is not) a valid marriage. The government should only be interested from the perspective of protecting the rights of people who are involved in a marriage (e.g. property rights). I assume the government could legally replace all references to "marriage" with "civil union" in laws and contracts and it would make no real difference (except the religious bigots would no longer be able to complain that the government is interfering with religion).

I am heterosexual and married, but I have no objection to having the church tell me I am "married" while the government tells me I have a "registered civil union." I am in favor of same-sex marriages (or civil unions) being equal (for all legal purposes) with mixed-sex marriages.

 

It isn't a debate. The Supreme Court has ruled it legal, and that's the end of the discussion.

 

No! I don't think so

There are many who are against any and all legal recognition of same sex marriage regardless of what it's called.

In addition, if same sex couples persisted in calling it marriage, even if that word no longer had a legal meaning, those who think that they own the word "marriage " would still be having apoplexy .

Any ongoing debate is not the problem. Those who wish to continue to ruminate about same sex marriage are free to do so. It is no one else's problem but their own. Most others have moved on.

The real problems are stupidity, bigotry, and discrimination. The first two will never be solved, at least not by anything that the government can do. Discrimination, at least with respect to marriage has been solved by the Obergefell decision. Case closed.

You Libertarian types like to float this thing about government getting out of marriage but not one of you, from Rand Paul on down has been able to articulate what that would look like-how it would actually work in the real world-given the extent to which marriage and government has become intertwined. Maybe you would like to take a shot.

I think that trying to dismantle an entire social and legal system-or to even change what it's called, in order to appease a dwindling number of anti gay bigots or antigovernment anarchists is pure idiocy.

 

The LGBTs will never go for that idea since their goal is to use the govt to impose their beliefs on everyone.

Your first sentence is the real answer - the govt should have no role in such personal matters as marriage.

 

ProgressivePatriot,

I agree with the point you and JunkieTurtle made that for most opposed to same-sex marriage, it is not due to the wording; it's due to the concept, which means using a different term would be largely ineffective at appeasing the divisiveness of the issue. With that aside, I'll have a go at your challenge.

I'm under no pretensions about my knowledge of Constitutional law, marriage and the state, and the history of the legality of marriage, so I'll explain this with an open mind. I came to this forum to test my ideas and beliefs, and if you are able to debunk my case, I will gladly accept such.

I'd imagine the Supreme Court would nullify any statute intertwined with marriage and unions. Any issues with tax breaks would be irrelevant, as I also advocate for the FairTax. I understand that it'd be important to implement the FairTax before overturning the legality of marriage. After such, priests and preachers would be free to marry or deny marriage to anyone they choose. Anyone could marry or be married with anyone or amount of people they wanted.

 

So basically you want the complete elimination of all government benefits and recognition of marriage and you think that the Supreme court can do that?

There are hundreds of State and Federal Statues that deal with marriage. It is far more than just about "tax breaks" In each and every one of those cases, someone with standing -one who can demonstrate that they are personally harmed by the law as it stands- and come up with some basis for claiming that it is unconstitutional. That process would likely take us into the next century. Sure, you could try to do it through legislation- good luck with that too.

Like all of the others, you have not really thought this through. You proposal is driven by your Libertarian ideology rather than anything that actually makes sense.

I am especially flabbergasted and appalled by you suggestion that that clergy be allowed to marry people. What about those of us who are secular but want to be married. You seem to be setting up a religious discrimination issue. Do you also want to get rid of the first amendment?

You are advocating for something that most likely impossible, that few people want, that solves nothing. and that benefits no one.

 

My thoughts are, first government will never be out of marriage. Second the only problem that this would solve is that people who think that they should define marriage would get lip service. It doesn't benefit anybody, or doesn't do anything but play semantics that aren't necessary.

We already have a word for that. It's called marriage. People with different faiths and sexes and so on don't matter. Marriage is a legal term, it encompasses all of that already.

The objection to the use of the term marriage is not legitimate. The state can't make any laws respecting the establishment of a religion. And going trough all of this hogwash to pay lip service to people is pointless. If marriage has some religious significance to people, great, reject all marriages that don't meet your standards as just legal contracts. Nobody cares.

Well here is my opinion. Changing laws in order to protect people from being offended is pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

It's pointless to argue this point

 

So absolutely nothing would change except people would be able to say "your marriage isn't real nya."

Pointless.

 

For the first question, yes. For the second, I have no idea if the Supreme Court would be able to do that. You're acting like you just busted me on my ignorance, but I've made it clear I don't know much about the subject, and that's why I'm talking about it: so I can figure out what does and doesn't make sense or work.

Yes, of course the clergy would be allowed to marry people. But not exclusively the clergy. You could be married by anyone you want, regardless of religious status and paper recognition. I think you misunderstood the idea I was trying to express in that part of my post.

But besides that, I agree that it would be too difficult to untwine the state and marriage.

 

Yes, sort of. They wouldn't say the marriage isn't real per se, but that the government wouldn't recognize it.

 

Now you know can and can't do. I'm glad that we agree. The idea of doing away with marriage is pure folly. I can't believe that at this late date, people are still blathering about same sex marriage and trying to find ways around it.

 

Then don't argue it. The Truth will still work itself free of the LGBT/"progressive" stranglehold.

 

They have to.

 

Still losing it over the bogeyman huh?

The government will never be out of marriage. It never has been. Marriage is a legal contact, that's all it has ever been.

 

Oh, and the people who have been blathering about preserving and protecting marriage will go for it? The married people who rather like the government benefits, rights and protections that go with marriage will go for it?

I told you before, no one gives a rats hind parts what you believe. If your beliefs can be changed by same sex couples getting legally married and enjoying the benefits that go with it, you must have a very weak mind.

 

Some will, some will not. As you must certainly know by now that I am opposed to gay "marriage", but have always - for years, long before obergefell - argued that the govt has no role in defining marriage or awarding benefits based on marriage status. In fact, I have always argued that there should not even be a tax exempt or tax deductible category at all, not for politics or charities or religion.

You once again miss the point. Its not about equality, its not about govt benefits, its about the LGBT war on religion. And your posts in this thread prove it.

 

I agree about the tax deductions on all of the above - replace marriage deductions with caregiver credits and be done with it. Highly unlikely this will happen but it has a much higher chance than just repealing same sex marriage.

Its absolutely about equality, no gay person when getting married is secretly thinking "this is a blow to religion har har har". Such a rediculous assumption

 

That's not a change. The govt should not be involved in picking winners or in social engineering, tax policy should be based only on what the govt requires to fund its activity.

Some do use the govt to push their agenda, just read this thread.

 

Reducing ones taxes so they can better care for their children (up to a limit) is not social engineering

Of course some use the government to push there agenda, such as the church and pharmaceutical companies. You said:

Which is a fairly blanket position that covers all (or at least a sizable portion of) LGBT persons.

Please prove that the bulk or even a reasonable percent of gay people are really just using marriage as a means to attack religion... I re-read the thread and couldn't even find the single post you were referring to that "proves your point".

 

We have our solution already implemented. I think your are looking for a problem that no longer exists. My daughter Kayren married her wife over a year ago. She has a marriage certificate over her bed, just as her brother and his wife do. If you want to dissolve all marriage contracts and have everyone get a new 'union' license just to appease the disgruntled, feel free.

 

If the idea were implemented, it'd be transitioned out so that all civil union and marriage certificates were legal, but all future licences would simply be called unions.