Gay marriage? Sure. But why not civil unions for straights? :`D

[truthisouttheir]

For simplicity I think it's better for the state to stop worrying about people's relationship status. If your religion lets you get married go for it. Why should married people get special advantages on their taxes? And could two brothers file a civil unions for tax purposes even tho they aren't gay and have long term girlfriends and kids out of wedlock... Also can I marry my hand? Jk

[Danierurei]

The issue of "Gay Marriage" is one of bigotry. At one point in time, African Americans, Irish Americans, Etc... were subject to the some of the same injustices. Simple fact is that we were ignorant. We still are for many reasons. We won't be forever. It takes time for a culture, even American culture, to adjust to different ideas. The most homophobic people tend to be older. Younger generations are more educated and less ignorant. Maybe in another 100 years, we'll have a gay president.

[Yifero]

This does seem like a win-all. I am a Christian, and I'm attracted to both men and women. I've been struggling with the idea of how to reconcile this. I agree that MARRIAGE is one man one woman, but at the same time, if I love someone who is also a woman, how could I take that "next step" this does seem like a good way to do that.

[Twilightifyable]

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, which is a federal law defining a marriage between a man and a women.

.

In February, President Obama announced that he would not enforce this Act. He has taken another power grab for the Executive Branch by not following our Constitution, but choosing which laws to follow and which not to.

.

Just imagine if he did that for Obamacare.

.

Allen West 2012

[Beenkah]

Okay honestly i can see where you are coming from and ignoring all religious stand points that anyone might have, looking at this proposition the way you are is selfish. It really isn't about how gay marriage can affect the current marriages but how it can affect the future of those that are by raised around these marriages or by these marriages. Children are never going to get a chance to decide if they support this or not cause this idea was cultivated in them before they could ever choose.

[Beenkah]

Okay honestly i can see where you are coming from and ignoring all religious stand points that anyone might have, looking at this proposition the way you are is selfish. It really isn't about how gay marriage can affect the current marriages but how it can affect the future of those that are by raised around these marriages or by these marriages. Children are never going to get a chance to decide if they support this or not cause this idea was cultivated in them before they could ever choose.

[aimenhoodle]

I've been married and think it is a good way to screw up a good relationship... I think anyone should have the right to ruin their life that way if they so choose. XP

[ZawiszaYT]

If you have gay marriage you might as well be fair to everybody and allow anybody to marry anything... Like allow +3 people to marry each other, because gay people aren't the only ones who want to have a bond that isn't just between a man and a woman, there are people who want to marry dogs or cats too...

[vicorii]

@ZawiszaYT despite all the play-acting, marriage started out (and ultimately will always be) a contract enabling two people to make a family together.

Gays want to pretend that marriage is not about procreation, so make it a felony to use the rights and presumptions of marriage to misrepresent yourself as the parent of a child you know you're not at all related to.

The benefits they want are for parents.

[gaylolful]

@ZawiszaYT Lmao there we go again....comparing homosexuality to everything...um what rights does a cat have? Does a cat know how to express it's love for a human in that way? Does the human have the consent of the cat? Does the cat even know what a marriage is? How would the cat raise adopted children? LOL Don't you see what's wrong with this comparison??

[kaykaylynn91]

The government should just stop regulating marriage. The state should have to power to permit us to marry. Typical ignorant liberal argument- not everyone who is against gay marriage is religious. My cousin married without the permission of the state and other gay couples can too. Stop talking out of your ass.

[gabbababble]

Thank you for an excellent video. And thank you for your strong stance in support of equality... And most of all thank you for speaking up!!

[BlackRepublican2010]

MARRIAGE BY DEFINITION IS ONE MAN ONE WOMAN!

Not what conveniences us at the moment!

[pmcrimson]

@BlackRepublican2010 Sexuality is, by definition, which gender you are sexually attracted to. Because of this, gay marriage is no more a matter of "convenience" than straight marriage is a matter of "convenience" for straights. Marriage will not be harmed by allowing gays to marry each other just like marriage was not harmed by people of different faiths and different races being able to marry each other. The freedom to commit yourself to the person you love is a right everyone should have.

[AtheismInExhile]

@BlackRepublican2010 Marriage has had many definitions in the past, and it is slowly evolving to what it should be.

Do we still only allow whites to marry whites, and blacks to marry blacks?

Do we still allow men to marry multiple wives?

Do we still allow old men to marry children?

Of course we don't. It was wrong, SO WE REDEFINED IT for the better. The definition of marriage has been redefined so many times. That argument is invalid.

[salexo9]

@BlackRepublican2010 There is no such definition of marriage, In fact, historically it would be more likely one man and several women. Or in ancient times even brother and sister (Cleopatra).

[johnrcrews]

@BlackRepublican2010 Just because you say so? Gay marriage will not take away anything from straight marriages. Grow up!

[nicksum29]

@BlackRepublican2010 Heh-heh-heh - you haven't read the Bible lately.

[msbuch72]

I have a question for the maker of this video and for people who claim the word marriage is reserved for the holy bonds of man and wife only. Where were you when the state allowed atheists to marry? Where was the call for civil unions then? There is nothing more unholy than atheists. Even gay people can be religious. So why demand civil unions for all just now that gays are starting to be let in? We're not as good as atheists or something?

[pmcrimson]

Actually, I'm not religious myself, and if I ever marry it will likely be to an agnostic or atheist.

I fully support gay marriage rights (see my follow-up post about Prop 8 for details). My main concerns are that all couples, regardless of gender, get the same term and the same rights. If that means making all unions "civil unions," that's fine with me. Plus, it wouldn't hurt to reinforce the wall between church and state. Win-win!

But I still 100% support gay marriage.

[msbuch72]

Even you want to get married. Why is it ok for religious people to claim ownership on a word that describes not only a religious ceremony, but also a civil contract that even an agnostic like yourself wants to call marriage?

You don't find it the least bit offensive that atheist get married, without a single word from religions, but now that gays are being allowed in, they want to change it to exclude us and you agree!? I'm come to expect this from straights. Always thinking of yourself first.

[pmcrimson]

1) I don't know if I'll ever get married. I might not. I'm just saying that if I do, since I'm not religious, it will likely be to someone else who is also not religious. Although I won't get married until gays are able to get legally married. I don't want any part of an institution that discriminates.

2) Dude, I already said that I FULLY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. If you don't believe me, watch the other video and browse the comments. I DEFEND gay marriage all the time.

[pmcrimson]

To recap, since somehow you're apparently still unclear on my position:

1) I fully and unequivocally support gay marriage. PLEASE watch the follow up video.

2) As a method of further separating church from state and helping to speed the day gays get their rights, I have no problem calling ALL legal unions, BOTH straight and gay, civil unions.

3) As an act of solidarity with our wonderful gay citizenry, I will not be getting married as long as gay marriage is illegal anywhere in the US.

[richietokyowoo]

i think that the word marriage is the only way the LGBT community will ever be equal to the straight community, this idea of only civil unions treats LGBT people as second class citizens on the idea that seperate is equal. Seperate is NEVER equal. A gay person wants to PROPOSE to their partner, get on one knee and ask "will you marry me?" as straight couples can do, not sign up for domestic partnership together, they want to go on HONEYMOONS, not Vacations to celebrate your domestic partnership.

[pmcrimson]

Excellent point. Thanks for the comment. :`)

[Iwillgiveyouctime]

bruce is a tool

[BruceIsSoCool]

lol

[Iwillgiveyouctime]

you aren't telling me you FUCKING coward!

[muellerican]

Re: I am not married but I want to give an answer to your question.

A: I'm opposed to cancelling civil marriage in order to institutionalize civil unions for everyone. Cancelling marriage will not cancel other religious marriages, the state can only cancel civil marriage therefore it will only strengthen the sanctity of marriage, since all marriage will then be religious and I like non-religious marriage, like I like non-religious politics. It was all made to control people, anyways.

[jonkoepsell]

THE PARTS DON'T FIT

[thisheartisfluid]

actually, jonkoepsell, dicks fit ever-so-nicely into anuses, especially with a little lube in there, slides right in! and feels pretty awesome too! heterosexuals even agree!

Oh, and fingers fit wonderfully into vaginas, as do perfectly crafted dildos and strap-ons. Many heterosexuals would agree with this too!

Wow, humans really are amazing...

[ilakster]

GREAT IDEA!

[tonestar100]

pmcrimson: Sadly, I see many gaping flaws in your arguments both here and on the Hollywood (is pro-gay, imagine that) video site. You seem to honestly thirst for real answers. I believe I can respond to everything you've said in a cogent and rational manner, including your confusion as to the Constitution. My question for you: are you really interested in hearing my views in response to your questions?

[MrTabby5000]

When God destroys the gay like in sodom and gomorrah,the innocent will suffer too.

[ReallyNow9]

You and I have the same opinion. Civil Unions for all! :D and keep religion in the church. Haha.

[BruceGiron]

Secular reasons, did I say I was religious? No I didn't, I just dont want to give them that government privilege, scientifically speaking its supposed to be man and women. They can go on without same sex marriage through the government. Theyre not normal they should have respect for those that are and just leave the same sex marriage thing alone.

[broadwayedz1010]

You said that it's not natural or scientific to have gay marriage. But since when is marriage natural or scientific? Marriage was created by humans. And what's the point of being married if the government won't recognize it?

[BruceIsSoCool]

Well people get married threw the government for legal purposes or benefits. You can have a wedding ceremony and change your last name.

Marriage natural or scientific? yeah we live in a world were it's man and women otherwise its a genetic fluke. Thos who are born that way or become are outcast or unorthodox. Since us normal people. Look its not gays are being treated like blacks were this whole thing is stupid Im done

[Iwillgiveyouctime]

wow you're a tool. why not allow gay marriage? how are they not normal? what makes them not normal? they are just like you and me and the only difference is sometimes they are flamers and you aren't. deal with it. no we will not leave it alone till we are allowed the same rights as you.

[BruceGiron]

Well first of All I dont care if they get married, just not through the government, they have gay bars, clubs Im also cool with also. Theyre unorthodox, But same sex marriages through the government NO on my dollar. Maybe they do need more rights like when it comes to hospital visits. Well I have to go shopping bye

[BruceGiron]

actually in some states gay marriage is thought in schools

[pmcrimson]

Define "taught in schools."

Do you mean that kids are taught that they *should* get gay married? That gays want to get married? What context are these classes taught in? A class on the history of how marriage in the U.S. has evolved legally over the course of our history? As part of a civil rights history? Or what?

[MrTabby5000]

Watch how fast teachers will have to talk about the sodomistic and muffdiving lifestyle.

[BruceGiron]

Its based on morality, but I dont have time to get into that today

[BruceGiron]

Even socialist dont like same sex couples and most socialist countries are non-believers

[pmcrimson]

This question is not a popularity contest. How "most seculars" and "most religious people" view gay marriage doesn't matter. I just want the rationale against gay marriage, preferably secular and constitutionally valid. What secular reasons do YOU have to oppose gay marriage? And what do you think about the "civil unions for everybody!" compromise?

[BruceGiron]

By the way there are plenty of non religous people out there that don't like gays.

[pmcrimson]

So?

There were nonreligious people who supported slavery and segregation too, but that didn't make slavery or segregation right. It's sad that religious doctrine is often used by those defending social injustice, but social rights and freedoms must be investigated entirely on their own terms. The whole point is that religion is irrelevant -- that our laws must be based on reason and fairness, not ANY form of bigotry or dogma.

[collins1188]

"It's sad that religious doctrine is often used by those defending social injustice."

This quote pretty much sums up the arrogance of leftists. Nice blatant use of straw-man arguments and false assumptions.

Religious doctrine isn't used to defend anti-gay marriage activism. The fact that religious institutions CREATED AND DEFINED marriage and the gov't has taken over THEIR religious ritual and is currently trying to turn it into something it is not meant to be, is why it is wrong.

[pmcrimson]

Regarding women virtual property of their husbands, upholding the slavery of black Americans, upholding segregation in the U.S. were all defended on the basis of Biblical doctrine. That is what I am referring to. This doesn't mean that all religious people, or even all religions, retard the progress of social justice. (MLK was a preacher, after all.) What it does mean is that "this is what the Bible says" is often an excuse to uphold bigotry and is not a valid argument in a U.S. court of law.

[pmcrimson]

So you haven't seen the folks with signs quoting Deuteronomy's take on gay sex to fight the right of gays to marry? You've never heard anyone claim that gay marriage can't be right because gay sex perverts God's plan? (Never mind that sex is a separate issue from marriage, of course.)

The government hasn't taken over the religious ritual. Mormons can't get more than one legal marriage license, but CAN marry more than one person in their own ceremonies. Atheists can legally get married.

[pmcrimson]

Besides, it's not like the government *forces* anyone to get legally married. If you distrust the government, you're free to hold a religious ceremony but never apply for a marriage license. You won't get any of the legal benefits or protections of civil marriage, but then, why bother with those if the only thing you care about is recognition by your church?

[collins1188]

Here is my rational for this conclusion.

Marriage was created and defined by religious institutions (Judaism specifically). This definition, then belongs to them... for them to choose what regulations marriage entails.

The gov't has no right to impose their own views and agendas on any religious institution regarding their rituals which they have performed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Therefor, gov't can create their own (civil union) and grant any legal rights to whomever they choose.

[pmcrimson]

Ah, but religious marriage and civil marriage are separate institutions, even though they use the same word. Atheists can be married, after all. Getting a legal marriage license or a legal divorce are both 100% separate from getting a church to hold your marriage or getting a marriage annulled by a given church. Gay marriage rights would NOT force religions to hold gay marriage ceremonies, just as protecting interracial marriages did NOT force churches to hold interracial marriage ceremonies.

[collins1188]

I disagree with you on the means to which you found your conclusion, but your conclusion, none the less, is completely in agreement with my beliefs.

I have been advocating this position on gay marriage for about 4 years now (I'm only 20) and it is the PERFECT solution imo. I guess I'll read some comments on those who oppose this to get an idea of some possible flaws..

Thanks for making this video.

[pmcrimson]

No problem, and I'm glad to find another civil-unions-for-everybody supporter!

[muellerican]

Hello. First of all exuse my English, it is not my first language. I'm with you. But you seem to be missing a point, which I would like you to do a blog on. It is "Democracy". Seems that in the future of America you need to ensure that minorities are protected from a Christian Majority, in Holand and France it is the same with Muslims and in Israel with the Orthodox and the Muslim Extremists. You seem to be eloquent. Can you do a blog on the issue I just brought? thank you

[pmcrimson]

Don't stress about English being your second language. Frankly, your comment is written more clearly than what many native English speakers write on YouTube.

I like your idea of doing a blog about how democracies are meant to protect minority views as well as majority ones. I am somewhat familiar with the problems between Muslims and Jews in Israel, but know next to nothing about the situation in France. Do you know of any good articles explaining these issues? Thanks for the compliment!

[redwingblackjack]

I total agree 100%

[pmcrimson]

Awesome. And thankya!

[starryeyedbeautypie]

still awesome. :D

[pmcrimson]

Thankya!

[HATERSDotTV]

There is a movement in California to do just that, but they need 700,000 signatures or something.

[pmcrimson]

A friend sent me a link about this. My response was "Finally! Someone is using my idea!" ;-D

I look forward to seeing how this turns out. Civil unions for everybody is, imho, by far the most logical solution.

[kevleebro]

P.S. You are great!! It overjoys me to see such intelligence and poise in a person.

[pmcrimson]

Thank you so much! It really helps to hear positive feedback, especially when discussing issues as controversial as this one.

[kevleebro]

I just saw your follow up video and I agree with you but Im still on the fence about the phrasing. You suggest letting everyone have civil unions and allowing the couples decide whether they want to deem it a "Marriage" or a "Domestic Partnership" so long as both have the same rights. As being a young gay man I just have a hard time letting go of my commitment to my future partner not being called a marriage...Perhaps Im just being stubborn XD

[pmcrimson]

Well, if the above compromise was struck you could still have a gay marriage and a marriage ceremony, performed in the religious or secular manner of your own choice. The only difference would be that the "legal" term would be civil union (not just for you but for every couple).

But really, I support gay marriage. I'd love to see gay marriage legalized across the U.S. The above idea was one of pragmatism to ensure everyone's rights are protected equally, no matter their sexual orientation.

[HATERSDotTV]

Yes pmcrimson, but we could do that anyway. I could marry a dog in a religious ceremony but it would not be real... lets just take all marriage type words away and call it civil union for everyone - before both sides kill each other, and I imagine that will eventually start happening.

[AJ198540]

The government should not be in the "marriage" business at all.

Each Church should decide what couples it will marry, but once a chuch marries two people, that relationship needs to be recognized by all levels of government as a "union."

A straight couple is married by one church - The govt registers it as a union. A gay couple marries at another church - The govt registers it as a union. Same rights and benefits for both.

[pmcrimson]

I agree 100%. It's the most logical compromise, yet I've never heard any politician suggest it. Have you?

[fundles420]

Exactly what I've been wanting to hear someone say on tv or something. too bad the first time I hear this arguement outside of my own mind is from someone who has no media attention, hopefully more people will think of this idea, and make it law. The government is illegally getting involved and spending money on something they aren't allowed to tamper with.

[pmcrimson]

I wonder if anybody has written to their local representatives about this idea. If there was a petition for it, I wonder how much support "civil unions for everybody!" would get. Hmmmmmmmmm...

[xzrhsb]

Yes! Create civil unions or civil marriages and apply those civil unions/marriages to all the 1,000 or so laws that apply to the current marriage laws. Let churches have their religious marriage to their liking without government involvement in anyway. Unlike the one sided way they have wanted it lately.

[aleksapovseksa]

Thanks for posting this! No on prop 8! Yes to real love without gender barriers!!~

[MarshallVoit]

I completely agree. Marriage has been traditionally a religious institution (and it was until the King of England wanted a divorce!), and it should remain a religious institution. I think you're absolutely right - let the government grant a legal, civil union agreements to every pair of consenting adults that wants one. Then each religious institution can decide whether it wants to recognize and/or perform gay marriages or not.

Absolutely spot on.

[pmcrimson]

Glad to hear it! Thanks for the comment. :^)

[enigmatically]

I agree with you completely...keep the state completely out of marriage. Civil unions can be used to grant special privileges to committed couples in a relationship. There is no need to legally recognize marriage in the state...let people who want to marry have marriage ceremonies and people who want legal recognition of their committed relationship have civil unions. Then remove all references to marriage form the law, and have civil unions only for spousal rights.

[pmcrimson]

Exactly! That way everybody gets their rights and this nonsense over terminology is over. Thank you!

[wakeupamerican]

I'm respect gay couple's but not their marriage, marriage are for 1 man and 1 woman... I respected their right but not their sin...why don't you all the gay man ask our goverment for the land in the mid of no-where, you can named it what ever gay name you want, and try to populate a gay city or gay country? we wanna see what going to happen next???? just an idea's, maybe will work???hahhhh????

[pmcrimson]

Because segregating ourselves from those different from us only magnifies bigotry and reduces understanding. Love is a better answer than fear.

[heavenstinyangels]

Actually, I see more HATE coming out of this past prop 8 issue than from heterosexuals. WHy is that?

I have had MORE gay ppl call me names out of the mouth that kisses their mother. Wow...nasty names.

BTW, you dont have to be a homophob to want to keep marriage stickly one man, one woman.

We already have the california family code that makes ALL gay couples with the same exact rights.

[pmcrimson]

1) What precisely were the "nasty names" and how did you respond?

2) How did you know the people saying them were gay?

3) What were the circumstances of this occurrence? Were you just minding your own business, discussing your views on marriage, holding a pro-Prop 8 picket sign, or what?

4) So in California gays can adopt, do taxes together, see each other in hospitals as family members, and do absolutely EVERYTHING else that married straight couples can legally do?

[pmcrimson]

Although it's a big step in the right direction for gay couples to have all the rights and regulations as straight married couples, I'm afraid "separate but equal" policies don't work. There should be one standard: marriages for everybody or civil unions for everybody. Period.

And yes, it IS homophobic to be anti-gay marriage. I'm still waiting the answer to my question posed in this video: what threat, on a PRACTICAL and SECULAR basis, does any gay marriage pose to any straight marriage?

[sicktoaster]

It's equal if straight people can't have state-recognized marriages either.

[pmcrimson]

*shrugs*

True, but a majority of both straights and gays want their marriage rights, so I don't see that as a feasible way of achieving equality.

[sicktoaster]

This video seems to be talking about keeping all the same rights and extending them to same-sex couples, just that legally it would be called "civil unions" and "marriage" would be used by whoever wants to think of you as married.

[pmcrimson]

What I'm suggesting in the video is leaving marriage as a ceremonial status or religious institution, and civil unions as the legal status that the government recognizes. That way the separation of church and state is reinforced and gay couples can't be discriminated against. Win-win!

[collins1188]

"Although it's a big step in the right direction for gay couples to have all the rights and regulations as straight married couples, I'm afraid "separate but equal" policies don't work"

I just wanted to correct you that this is not separate but equal. A gay man is not banned from getting married as much as the gay community will want to make you think. A gay man is perfectly capable of marrying a woman. Whether he desires to or not is completely irrelevant to this debate. It is equal.

[pmcrimson]

Ah, but by that rationale, it wasn't discriminatory to ban interracial marriages because both races had the equal freedom to marry within their race.

The question is whether or not the state gives equal protection to all couples wishing to be married to one another. In most states, gay people do not have the right to marry someone of the same gender, no matter how much they love them and are committed to them.

[BruceGiron]

Youre rambling on about stuff, you see things upside down, in your video you make it seem like its all because of religious people and Im telling you that, that not might be the case, when I hear or see the word steal or kill God doesnt always come to mind but just my principles, same sex couples are an outcast, unorthodox. People view them like that with or without religion

[collins1188]

I agree with you completely. I have commented on anti-religious videos about how people are innately driven to do evil things. That all people are equally capable of evil actions and thoughts and that SOME people find ways to misrepresent religion in order to justify their evil ways. If religion did not exist, people would find some other ideology to justify their actions... In this sense, religion is completely irrelevant and simply fills a necessary, yet easily replaceable, role.

[pmcrimson]

collins1188: Now this is a post of yours that I totally agree with. :-)

[pmcrimson]

Based on protest rallies and my experiences talking with people (both on the Net and IRL), the majority of folks opposing gay marriage do so for religious reasons. However, I made this video (& especially its follow up) in part to find out what secular arguments people have against gay marriage. In my experience, those folks tend to be straight up homophobes who are disgusted by the idea of gay sex. But you are free to buck the trend. What secular reasoning backs your opposition to gay marriage?

[pmcrimson]

While I can see gays being "unorthodox" in the sense of being a minority, I cringe at anyone regarding them as outcasts. Do you actually think of gay couples as outcasts? If so, why?

And yes, religion is irrelevant. Even nonreligious people can be homophobic. The whole point of the discussions I'm trying to have here is to get people to leave out religion and deal with gay marriage strictly as a matter of fairness, freedom, and secular law.

[surfingthechaos]

I personally think that there shouldn't be any legal recognition of any relationships whatsoever. No one should get any tax breaks for being in a monogamous relationship with anyone else whether homosexual or heterosexual, but then again I don't think there should be an income tax in the first place either.

[pmcrimson]

Hmmm, that's something to consider. I assume that married folks got tax breaks under the rationale that they would have kids later. But obviously you do get breaks for dependents, and not all married folks want kids. So I should look into the present-day rationale for that practice. Although, there are other legal rights and regulations related to marriage too.

[pmcrimson]

The income tax is another issue. I support it when it is done so that people contribute what they are realistically able to afford. (Yes, this means the rich get taxed more than the poor. They can quit their whining and deal with it. Certain social responsibilities have to be paid for through the government.)

To further make sure taxing is fair, sales tax should only be on luxury items (and maybe junk food), never healthy (esp. organic) food. But that's a whole separate debate. :-D

[surfingthechaos]

I disagree. I think there should only be a sales tax and it should be on everything. Obviously the higher cost "luxury" items would have a higher percentage for the tax. This would be the most ethical solution because it would give everyone the opportunity to pay only what taxes they wanted to pay by choosing what they will and won't buy.

[pmcrimson]

Except that, assuming they want to live, everyone has to buy food. Essentials aren't really a "choice" in the same way that luxury or convenience items are. At the very least, I'd like to see no sales tax on organic foods, both to make them more affordable and to help the farms and businesses which provide them stay economically viable. They're usually relatively small and could benefit a lot from the help.

(Sorry, I just now saw this comment.)

[meschoo]

I'm with you on that. I think it goes against separation of church and state to give a tax break to someone based on their religious beliefs.

[MarshallVoit]

To sufingthechaos: I'm not sure I disagree with you, but I just want to point out that not all marriages or relationships are monogamous, whether both parties know about it or not.

[surfingthechaos]

I understand that, but the ones that aren't also technically exist outside the terms of the marriage agreement.

[Fisch71]

So rational human beings like atheists and agnostics have to give up on the life-long dream of getting married, and are relogated to civil unions, which for all their equality under the law nevertheless suffer a kind of second-class, non-traditional stigma? If that's one of the outcomes of your proposal, then I don't like it at all.

[pmcrimson]

Well, presumably atheists wouldn't want to get married by a church, and in the idea I'm proposing all civil unions would include the same legal rights and regulations as legal marriages currently hold. But nothing would bar atheists, agnostics, or others from holding their a marriage ceremony to their liking...just like in the system we have now. I see absolutely no reason civil unions would have a social or legal second-class stigma. Who do you know that looks down on current secular marriages?

[Fisch71]

It's not a matter of looking down on secular "marriages", it's a matter of looking down on civil unions as opposed to "marriages". As long as non-religious people can still have the word "marriage", then I'm fine with it, actually.

But I'm confused: if not the church or the courts, then what institution would recognize that an atheistic couple was actually "married"?

[pmcrimson]

Hmmmm. If non-religious folk prefer the word marriage, they could very well create a non-religious marriage ceremony of their own, overseen by a secular organization created for that express purpose, or simply a gathering of friends and family ceremoniously celebrating the couple's commitment to each other, or even do the whole tux and white dress thing with the ring exchange, but without the priest. This could be done in conjunction with the civil union recognized by the government.

[pmcrimson]

To state this a bit more clearly: non-religious folk could still have the word "marriage"; they'd just have to create their own standards about what secular marriage is (apart from the legal issues) and what kind of ceremony it might have. They might even want to start their own mediating/regulatory organization concerning it. Options are wide open.

But it's an interesting contrast of marriage's roles: a social tradition and institution vs. a commitment between two people vs. a legal contract.

[Fisch71]

What you suggest in terms of creating a new secular organization is open to discussion, but if that becomes part of the proposal, then your solution is no longer such a simple one, n'est pas?

[pmcrimson]

Meh, yes and no. Just depends on what the secular community would decide to do; how complex they would make it. I know that in Japan folks tend to get married in churches even though they're not Christian, or even particularly religious. Anybody nonreligious could do the same in the U.S. and really nothing would change. The idea of a new, secular marriage institution is just an option.

[pmcrimson]

But my primary concern is preserving the separation of church and state and getting gay folks the rights they deserve. This seems the most direct, quickest way to do this, especially considering the "Defense of Marriage Act" that congress is so fond of bringing up.

[Festerius2008]

Very well said and very true, too. There should not be any laws regarding 'marriage'. Your solution is excellent and logical! :)

[pmcrimson]

Thank ya much!

[alpharaptor1]

then the lord said unto moses "two dudes is gross, on the other hand two ladies..."

[jc8ward]

I am fairly certain that god has no objection to Lesbians, he seems to be offended by males getting together.

[pmcrimson]

Ah yes, Leviticus. Considering that God of the OT also considered weaving together different kinds of threads (and other oddities) an "abomination" too ... AND sanctioned forms of slavery ... AND demanded the wholesale destruction of peoples inhabiting a land he supposedly promised to someone else (even AFTER listing killing as a no-no among the ten commandments) ... I can't say that the OT God holds much sway in what I consider moral or immoral.

But maybe that's not what you meant?

[pmcrimson]

Regardless, that's still religious reasoning. Know of any secular objections to male-male or female-female unions legally identical to marriage, whether or not they use that term?

Thanks for your response!

[johnlumea]

Many thanks for posting this.

I've been making this argument privately for the last year.

However one wishes to define "religion," marriage is a religious issue, full stop. State-sponsored marriage is an abrogation of religious liberty, for the same reason that the push for state-mandated "school prayer" is. It's not simply that the state OUGHT not put its fingers in either of these very private and personal pies. It's that the state doesn't have the ABILITY to do that.

The arrogance.

[johnlumea]

It's remarkable that one never hears this argument being made by the politically mobilized segment of the LGBT "community."

Indeed, the fact that neither the gay community nor anyone else makes this argument is an indictment of how far this country has come from understanding what is required to sustain true religious freedom.

Also: Will you marry me? -- haha.

[morsec0de]

You rawk! Mainly because you're right. Why are you right? Because you agree with me, of course. ;)

[pmcrimson]

Hahah, but of course! We're just a couple o' great minds thinkin' alike! ;^D

[jjuran]

"We're just a couple o' great minds thinkin' alike! ;^D"

Awesome vid!

I too came up with this solution. Deal me in. :-)

The bottom line is that currently, marriage is both a religious institution and a state institution, and thus breaches the separation of church and state, a problem neatly solved by civil unions.

That should handle 'sanctity of marriage' charges, but nonetheless I expect moral outrage over gays actually getting equal rights under the law. The real problem is bigotry.

[pmcrimson]

"The real problem is bigotry."

True, but at least civil rights campaigns of the past offer hope here. It took a lot of time and grass roots efforts for women to gain the right to vote and to end segregation. Bigotry ultimately fails when enlightened leaders and groups take up the methods, passion, and hard work necessary to end it. If the gay rights community keeps history as its teacher, they'll have a long struggle, but they'll ultimately prevail.

[geroldkid]

I've always thought marriage was bullshit. Yeah, civil unions for EVERYBODY! Whether they like it or not! ^_-

[pmcrimson]

*smiles*

Indeed!