Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

[RightinNYC]

There are none. You know it. We know it.

You've said nothing to refute the separate but equal argument. It's the same thing.

A whites-only water fountain has no difference between a coloreds-only water fountain. You know it. We know it.

That's what we're arguing about.

No.

The point is that civil unions are what should be recognized by the government, regulated, used for tax purposes, etc...

Marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is outside their province, and is regulated by the religion of the people who choose to pursue it. It has no legal bearing, grants no rights, and can be given to whomsoever the specific church desires.

The real problem is not that republicans are against civil unions, but that democrats are against it, because of their all or nothing mentality.

There is no logical or coherent argument against this proposal. It removes marriage from the province of the government.

 

[shuamort]

No.

The point is that civil unions are what should be recognized by the government, regulated, used for tax purposes, etc...

Marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is outside their province, and is regulated by the religion of the people who choose to pursue it. It has no legal bearing, grants no rights, and can be given to whomsoever the specific church desires.

The real problem is not that republicans are against civil unions, but that democrats are against it, because of their all or nothing mentality.

There is no logical or coherent argument against this proposal. It removes marriage from the province of the government.

So you'd be ok with marriage being removed from all governmental recognition be it for gays and straights? All unions would be considered civil unions through the governments eye?

We're on the same page there if that's your proposal.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I say we write congress gentlemen... this sounds like a solution.

 

[RightinNYC]

So you'd be ok with marriage being removed from all governmental recognition be it for gays and straights? All unions would be considered civil unions through the governments eye?

We're on the same page there if that's your proposal.

Exactly. Each person gets to pair off. Go wild. Everyone gets the same rights.

You know what's surprising? We had a massive debate recently, College Repubs vs College Dems from NYU, Fordham, and Columbia, and this was the REPUBLICAN proposal.

The dems hated it.

 

[RightinNYC]

I say we write congress gentlemen... this sounds like a solution.

I'm going to be spending all summer with my Congressman, and I'm going to try to get him to back it.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

That's precisely what I was suggesting. If there is no difference between what heterosexuals get and what homosexuals get, there is equality.

 

[Fantasea]

Under federal law, "All men are created equal."

But heterosexuals and homosexuals aren't equal?

Are you insinuating that a homosexual man is not a man?

I maintain that a homosexual man is most certainly a man. And, in keeping with that, lesbian women are most certainly women.

As such, both are entitled to the same rights and privileges, while being bound by the same restrictions, as all others of their specific gender.

Hence all men and all women are subject to the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

[Pacridge]

Exactly. Each person gets to pair off. Go wild. Everyone gets the same rights.

You know what's surprising? We had a massive debate recently, College Repubs vs College Dems from NYU, Fordham, and Columbia, and this was the REPUBLICAN proposal.

The dems hated it.

Makes sense to me. Why the government in the marriage bus. at all is rather odd if you think about it.

Can't understand why the Dems would dislike it. I know, go ahead, tell me that they hate anything that make sense or is good for the country. I've heard it, it's crappy argument, so save it.

 

[Fantasea]

So you'd be ok with marriage being removed from all governmental recognition be it for gays and straights? All unions would be considered civil unions through the governments eye?

We're on the same page there if that's your proposal.

If I recall correctly, you'll also be on the same page as Communist Russia after the revolution.

 

[RightinNYC]

Can't understand why the Dems would dislike it. I know, go ahead, tell me that they hate anything that make sense or is good for the country. I've heard it, it's crappy argument, so save it.

Not at all what I'm trying to say. I'm pointing out that many people believe that the republicans are the ones acting as obstructionists on this issue, while much of the delay and acrimony can be attributed to the all or nothing attitude of many democratic politicians.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

If I recall correctly, you'll also be on the same page as Communist Russia after the revolution.

So they had one thing right? Even the blind mouse finds cheese once in awhile right?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
If I recall correctly, you'll also be on the same page as Communist Russia after the revolution.

So they had one thing right? Even the blind mouse finds cheese once in awhile right?

That would seem to indicate you are not particular about the company you keep.

 

[Schweddy]

So you'd be ok with marriage being removed from all governmental recognition be it for gays and straights? All unions would be considered civil unions through the governments eye?

I can almost buy this... keep going.

 

[RightinNYC]

That would seem to indicate you are not particular about the company you keep.

That's not really fair to say...I mean, any government is capable of doing a multitude of different things, not all of which are bad.

Bush increased funding for the NEA
Hitler boosted the German Economy
Saudi Arabia is tough on crime

etc.

Just because Russia once had a similar policy doesn't make it bad.

 

[Fantasea]

That's not really fair to say...I mean, any government is capable of doing a multitude of different things, not all of which are bad.

Bush increased funding for the NEA
Hitler boosted the German Economy
Saudi Arabia is tough on crime

etc.

Just because Russia once had a similar policy doesn't make it bad.

You are correct. The policy wasn't bad just because Russia had it. The policy is simply intrinsically bad.

 

[shuamort]

I can almost buy this... keep going.

Sure, first ignore the name of the country here, it's France. (LOL)

French law recognises only the civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l'état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), his legally authorised replacement - the deputy mayor (adjoint) or a city councillor (conseiller municipal).

Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)

France has decided to seperate the religious notations from marriage for the sake of the government while allowing people to practice their religion however they choose. France calls these civil marriages which for all intents and purposes could be called civil unions as well.

I agree with that policy to an extent, but would also want it so that churches would still be allowed to union and marry at the same time as it sits in some states now.