Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like I said earlier, it's like tearing down the water fountain because you can't have a white version and a colored version anymore and you refuse to share yours.

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said earlier, it's like tearing down the water fountain because you can't have a white version and a colored version anymore and you refuse to share yours.

That's actually pretty accurate.

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said earlier, it's like tearing down the water fountain because you can't have a white version and a colored version anymore and you refuse to share yours.

There's merit to that analogy...

*shrug*

I don't care if the state, feds, or anyone else for that matter, won't call my future marriage... as "marriage". I ain't getting "married" in church anyways...

All that matters is what me and my future-bride believe it will be.

That's it.

Who gives a feth what other people thinks? Seriously ya'll.

Let 'em get married, or "state recognized couple", or whathaveyous.

Seems simple to me. Totally remove the word from all....in case you missed it...official government documents. Use another word for "Marriage" and say "Union". Thereby removing State and Federal government from the issue. You still have to get a "Union" license hence paying a State fee for them to issue it to the couple. Once joined in "Union" they, as a couple, either file state and federal income taxes separate or joint file. Both sides has the same rights and benefits as a couple that's enjoyed in today's traditional marriage. Marriage I believe is going the way of the words:
Segregation

I am "Married" myself but my stance already known. I do not care as long as same sex couples do not get an advantage over traditional couples.

Blood Hawk

Yep, anything less is just giving gays second class status.

The word marriage is not in use in my scenario being that its removed from...again... all official government documents
No one is second class. You assuming that the word "Marriage" is still in play.

First it is appeasing the people who want to deny rights to gay couples and also it probably won't even work. Do you honestly think that those who still believe that pray away the gay programs work, or the really hard line ones support and instigate what has been happening in Uganda will take your fix to the problem and shut up? Of course not.

In case you keep missing it
Official government documents

You wanting to keep fighting for the Title of Marriage to me is saying you wanting to make a jab at the religious groups fighting to keep the word their own. It no longer matters now being that the word "Marriage" has been removed. If they want the "Marriage" title and document from a Church/mosque/synagogue/whatever holy place to conduct the wedding. Hence paying a fee to the church/mosque/synagogue/temple/holy place. Same sex and traditional couple can pay their fee to have it done

Marriage is going out the door to join "segregation". You missed that point? There will not be change in government unless the current generation either get into office or someone who is in office to take up the fight. November coming. Make your vote happen.

Since money involve
State happy being fee's are paid
Federal Happy because registered couple filing taxes or however that breaks down
Church/mosque/temple/synagogue is happy being rent of place and issuing a version of a "Marriage" certificate is being paid for

Think outside the box instead of looking at six sides

and

KISS

Besides what does your plan do about all the Christians that disagree with those are who anti gay marriage and whose church has already embarrassed gay marriage and have ceremonies with all the religious pop and circumstance and are even officiated by a priest? They would still be a Gay couple who are married, and the anti gay Christian would still be pissed so....

Easy. Call LEO when they act like Ass Hats. Make the incident appear on media. Your reaching with this one. The only time I be concerned is when I start hearing "Allah Akbar" or "God wills it"

And create a second class union for everybody because people refuse to share the common word that has been used since the country was founded.

You have yet to give a single reason why we should do that other than keeping people happy that don't want gays to be "married".

How will it be second class if the word "Marriage" is removed from all official government documentation. The state and federal government will view both type of couple the same. $$$$$$

So which be faster in giving same "Rights" to both same sex and traditional couples

Remove the word marriage from all official government documentation and replace it with "Union" being two consenting adults are now to be considered Life Term Partners who now have the same Rights as everyone.
or
Keep beating the dead horse to dust till change in State government makes the changes necessary in its Constitution.

What is the main sticking point on this. "Rights"? Or the title "Married"?

By removing "Marriage" and replacing with "Union" of two consenting adults who are now to considered Life Term Partners. Neither side gains a rat fart in this with the government.

Treat the word "marriage" the same as segregation and it'll die out in twenty years.

So if we're going to have 2nd class people come up as a defense
Also christian groups being angry over "church/temple/mosque/synagogue/holy place providing their own version of a marriage certificate

Then I see everyone is so hardline on the word marriage. A out the box idea is non acceptable so hence the longer the fight continues the longer couples will not be viewed as the same.

Crank a petition to the White House as a suggestion and let me know. I hop on the site and sign it. Since I have little concern over the matter it'll not be me to do it.

Edit

You have yet to give a single reason why we should do that other than keeping people happy that don't want gays to be "married".

They will be equally not happy for having the word either or did you miss the entire point? Oh wait...Its you D....KK sky not falling.

So you have no reason other than to pacify those that don't want gays to get married, got it.

Read above post D. Like you told me before. Contribute something to the post


Edit

Mind you
I deem the "Rights" more important then the title. In case you missed what I typed earlier

I did contribute.

I made I clear that it's stupid to tear down the water fountain because some people don't want to share.

You gave lots of ways to get rid of the water fountain, but no reason why we should do it other than "they don't want to share it so we will just dismantle it".

 Jihadin wrote:
Read above post D. Like you told me before. Contribute something to the post


Edit

Mind you
I deem the "Rights" more important then the title. In case you missed what I typed earlier

And what we've saying is; you're right, with the exception that you don't seem to view the ability to use the term marriage as an equal with everyone else currently, as part of that equality.

It's like telling Rosa Parks and co that we took on board what they'd been saying and so were providing them with whole buses of their own, rather than let them sit at the front of the bus they were currently sharing and not understanding why they seemed upset, as they were getting whole new buses, instead of being able to sit at the front of the old buses with the white folks.

Because it's not about equal coverage, it's about being equal.

So are we involving "Segregation" into this discussion? Did I not mention Oregon State has a Civil Right law into effect over this? Are you not arguing semantics now?

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

CE = Common Era = Christian Era

Latin
Who at the time the word originate spoke Latin. Roman Empire. Legitimizing a sexual act as to ensure the paternity of a child.

matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[

Not reaching but to show that over time the meaning can change. This is how it started

Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

For lack of words and going with a Grunt answer "To knock up"

Wedding

Old English weddian "to pledge, covenant to do something, marry," from Proto-Germanic *wadjojanan (cf. Old Norse veðja "to bet, wager," Old Frisian weddia "to promise," Gothic ga-wadjon "to betroth"), from PIE root *wadh- "to pledge, to redeem a pledge" (cf. Latin vas, genitive vadis "bail, security," Lithuanian vaduoti "to redeem a pledge"). Sense remained "pledge" in other Germanic languages (cf. German Wette "bet, wager"); development to "marry" is unique to English. "Originally 'make a woman one's wife by giving a pledge or earnest money', then used of either party" [Buck]. Related: Wedded; wedding.

Old Norse.

Words from a Pagan Society stolen to make Christianity more palatable to the Heathen masses.

Suprised General Grog not all over this.

Lots of blah blah blah, but not giving any reason for taking the word away from everybody other than "some people don't want gays to be married".

"some people don't want gays to be married".

Are you saying I am one of those people D? You reached back into history and brought segregation into play. I reached further back into history and brought about the meaning with the Etymology of "Marriage" and "Wedding". Now, are you making that comment towards me or in general? Clarify. Right now I'm feeling your on a personnel attack on me.

 Jihadin wrote:

"some people don't want gays to be married".

Are you saying I am one of those people D? You reached back into history and brought segregation into play. I reached further back into history and brought about the meaning with the Etymology of "Marriage" and "Wedding". Now, are you making that comment towards me or in general? Clarify. Right now I'm feeling your on a personnel attack on me.

It's a personal attack if you suck at reading comprehension.

Here is the whole quote:

 d-usa wrote:
Lots of blah blah blah, but not giving any reason for taking the word away from everybody other than "some people don't want gays to be married".

Same as the other 3-4 times where I posted the same thing. Now if you want to take that as me saying "You don't want gays to get married" then be my guest, but it has never been what I said. I've consistently said that your plan has no purpose other than to appease those that don't want "gay marriage" to be a thing.

I know you have a history of convoluted posts and always thinking I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying, which is why I ignore the majority of your posts. But I'm not okay with anybody advocating a solution to a real problem that does nothing but appease people who want to prohibit a group from getting the same treatment as everyone else.

D I would debate with you but we're not on the same playing field. You in turn on your post to my perception create drama. Removing the word "Marriage" from official government documentation means neither side gains with the backing of the government. Its appeasing nobody. You did not catch the reference I did about Clinton DADT did you. The reference you made on the "Blah blah blah" is to me a subtle attempt of an attack. Right now over time I have you up there with Baron Veigh. I could not care less nut pretty much having you peg as an instigator.

I go down this road with you though. You brought up Segagration did you not with the water fountain comment. For the life of me I have never seen water fountain with a placard of "straight" over one and "gay" over the other. I have not seen gays.....when I mention gays I also am mentioning lesbian couples...they do not stand or set in the back of the box. I have not seen separate seating area in movie theaters. I have not notice pay difference between a gay individual and a straight individual. Shall I continue?

The issue is "Rights". The same rights a traditional couple receive that same sex couple receive. The choke point is the word "Marriage". I just pretty much shot defense for Christian groups by having the word "Marriage" removed from all Official Government Documents. If you have not come to the conclusion of what happens then I pretty much tell yoyu. There is no backing of the state or federal government to stand with them. Pretty much separate Church from State does it not.

The word "Marriage" is to ingrained into everyone psych that everyone wants the word protected or expanded. Its the Rights that are important. I've a sense your going to "Blah Blah Blah" mode then I'm pretty much put you up there with Baron Veigh D

edit

Appeasing a group that the word is no longer in use by the government. How are they appease? The word is no longer there. The word is no longer recognize. Your fighting for a word to be involved that extends the attempt. I mention earlier if it happens then 20 years down the road the people will forget about it. Sebster got what I was saying. We're on somewhat similar track. Other then that Stay Frosty D-USA and stop the "Assume" mentality.

The right is to get married.

And a very vocal minority don't want gay people to get married.

Your plan appeases them because it would let them win and wouldn't allow gay people to get married.

The fight is over equal rights and equal treatment which includes usage of the word, which is the one thing you don't seem to understand.

"Nobody get's married" is a victory for those that don't want gays to marry. As has been explained to you over and over again.

And it's a stupid plan because you would have to go through every single law on the federal, state, and local level that deals with marriage and change every single one of those laws, then you would have to change every single document because you can't issue marriage certificates if there are no more marriages. It's a logistical and bureocratic clusterfeth for no other reason than to let the "gays can't get married" people win.

I am constantly astonished by the extent to which some right wing Americans advocate massive expensive government action in order to accommodate small groups of bigots and annoy large constituencies of ordinary citizens.

If you are a religion that does not believe in gay marriage, call your own marriage ceremony a "religious union coupling" ceremony.

Go down the register office to register it legally on the Marriage Certificate, like everyone else.

Then call yourself "religious union coupled" instead of married. No-one will care.

Why I said remove the word "Marriage" from all official government documents. Removes the State and Federal government from it. Have another word and clarification on it. Everyone gets what they want. Everyone so wrapped on the word/title that they lost focus on what is at issue.

As some said so far.

We create a 2nd class
Its equating it to Segregation
Word "Marriage" is now protected since neither the State or Federal Government no longer has it in vocab
It cost to much

Yet the "Title" is much more important then the "Rights"

Except "what everyone wants" is to be seen as "married". Not "legally civil unionised double plus good".

Why do you feel a need to invent new words for something that already exists? Other than to protect the word "marriage" for upstanding Christians of course...

Marriage is removed from all official government documents. Word is no longer "protected" by either State or Federal government. Both sides can then pay out of their own pockets for the lawyers to battle each other in court. It is not for the government to decide or define what a "Marriage" is. Leave it up to the people.

Edit

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover same sex marriage. So hence the people elected that involved the word "Marriage" into our laws need to be removed by people who are either open to it, needs a way around, or remove itself from the issue.

Last time I checked the government is supposed to represent the people...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Except "what everyone wants" is to be seen as "married".

Regardless of what the law says, the people who object are never going to concede that they're actually married.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Except "what everyone wants" is to be seen as "married".

Regardless of what the law says, the people who object are never going to concede that they're actually married.

What the law says is the important bit. Thankfully most of western society is moving towards being inclusive rather than exclusive and like the kinds of people who used to object to interracial couples, homophobes are gradually dying off.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Except "what everyone wants" is to be seen as "married".

Regardless of what the law says, the people who object are never going to concede that they're actually married.

Exactly, they won't be happy with any outcome, so...


They can remain convinced that gays aren't married, the rest of the world can get on with letting gays get married and they can be legally recognized as married, just as we can now ignore the people who believe blacks are the children of Cain and less human than whites.

They are free to believe whatever they want in their house or church, they are not free to impede the freedom and equal treatment of law abiding citizenry in the wider society.

Whoa now....didn't think you were a fan to MGS....

18 and over please

 Jihadin wrote:
Marriage is removed from all official government documents. Word is no longer "protected" by either State or Federal government. Both sides can then pay out of their own pockets for the lawyers to battle each other in court. It is not for the government to decide or define what a "Marriage" is. Leave it up to the people.

Edit

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover same sex marriage. So hence the people elected that involved the word "Marriage" into our laws need to be removed by people who are either open to it, needs a way around, or remove itself from the issue.

Wait, you want to remove government involvement from marriage to only let government then settle the dispute through the court system? Why not just settle the dispute by having the government lets gays get married and just move on? Also it is courts where a lot of the movement towards marriage equality is anyway.

Wait, you want to remove government involvement from marriage to only let government then settle the dispute through the court system? Why not just settle the dispute by having the government lets gays get married and just move on? Also it is courts where a lot of the movement towards marriage equality is anyway.

Your not getting it are you. Gay/Lesbian groups pay for their lawyers. Anti Gay marriage groups pay for their lawyers. Neither side involves federal lawyers. Since there are no more of a "Legal" clarification of a "Marriage" it comes down to a State Civil Rights Law as in Oregon. You tracking now? Think instead of jumping the gun and screaming the Sky is falling.

Ooorrrr the government just extends the same basic rights and protections to everyone rather than making a bunch of lawyers rich just to briefly appease a group of homophobes before they get soundly beaten in the courts and swept into the dustbin of history with the people who think blacks should sit at the back of the bus and women should stay in the kitchen.

 Jihadin wrote:

Wait, you want to remove government involvement from marriage to only let government then settle the dispute through the court system? Why not just settle the dispute by having the government lets gays get married and just move on? Also it is courts where a lot of the movement towards marriage equality is anyway.

Your not getting it are you. Gay/Lesbian groups pay for their lawyers. Anti Gay marriage groups pay for their lawyers. Neither side involves federal lawyers. Since there are no more of a "Legal" clarification of a "Marriage" it comes down to a State Civil Rights Law as in Oregon. You tracking now? Think instead of jumping the gun and screaming the Sky is falling.

But that is still government getting involved and making a ruling. There still is the federal worker behind the bench making the ruling so government is still involved. Once the the judge makes the ruling there will still be legal president for what is marriage based on the ruling. Except now millions of gay and straight couples are denied marriage status that many of them already had, all to what, appease of small load minority which isn't going away even after the change?

If the point is to remove government then you would have to solve this dispute without the court system. Understand my point?

Ooorrrr the government just extends the same basic rights and protections to everyone rather than making a bunch of lawyers rich just to briefly appease a group of homophobes before they get soundly beaten in the courts and swept into the dustbin of history with the people who think blacks should sit at the back of the bus and women should stay in the kitchen.

US Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover "Marriage" US Government does not regulate "Marriage" The State does regulate "Marriage". So removing the word and definition of "Marriage" from Official Government Documents opens the door for a "Union" or whatever is in used to cover everyone is more acceptable. Thereby granting everyone the same "RIGHTS". Hence opening up the door to make discrimination against same sex couple illegal a State Civil Rights Law

I do believe I clarified enough on my stand on this scenario. As I stated before I do not care about this subject because it has no impact on me. I came up with the quickest solution giving all couple equal rights for that was the impression I have seen over the years. The same "Rights" as a traditional married couple.