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

I'd love some feedback on the idea of having the government regulate civil unions (both straight and gay) and leaving the term "marriage" to refer to the religious institution. Gays get the rights they deserve and the separation of church and state is reinforced. Win-win!

This is the most logical compromise I can imagine, but what would happen if this was suggested in the legislature? How much backlash would there be? How long would it take to get the majority of Americans behind this idea? Please, share your thoughts!

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• gay
• marriage
• straight
• civil
• unions
• threaten
• separation
• of
• church
• and
• state

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[nicksum29]

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

[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.

[johnrcrews]

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

[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).