Do you support Dixie's solution?

Do you support Dixie's solution to the Gay Marriage issue?

  • YES! I support Dixie's solution.

    Votes: 21 75.0%

  • NO! I do not support Dixie's solution.

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • Total voters
    28
D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
My solution to the "Gay Marriage" issue, which gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the problems:

1. Governments no longer issue "Marriage" licenses.
2. They are replaced with a Civil Union contract instead.
3. Churches can continue to "marry" whoever they please.
4. CU contracts would be between two consenting adults regardless of their relationship.
5. Tax breaks, insurance, and other benefits associated with "married" couples, would then apply to any couple with a CU contract.
6. Old "Marriage Licenses" would be recognized as a CU contract.

This solution removes any issue of sexuality, and any issue of religious beliefs. It puts the issue of "gay marriage" to rest forever, and removes our government from the sanctioning of a religious tradition and custom or basing laws on sexual behaviors. There is no 'slippery slope' and there is no 'discrimination' and everyone is happy! Problem Solved!

Do you support this solution? If not, please explain why.
 
I support getting government out of marriage, yes. What you have outlined seems consistent with that idea. I would actually take it a step further and say that marriage contracts (civil unions, if you prefer) should be for any two (or more) consenting adults. Contract law would be governed at the State level and State courts would be charged with marriage contract dissolution.

But you have also said that you would support a Federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Why would you offer this compromise if you also wish to use the Leviathan to rule and define marriage?
 
ironhead said:
I support getting government out of marriage, yes. What you have outlined seems consistent with that idea. I would actually take it a step further and say that marriage contracts (civil unions, if you prefer) should be for any two (or more) consenting adults. Contract law would be governed at the State level and State courts would be charged with marriage contract dissolution.

But you have also said that you would support a Federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Why would you offer this compromise if you also wish to use the Leviathan to rule and define marriage?
Click to expand...

I view it as a means to an end. My objective is to ultimately get gay couples the benefits they deserve and should have. We're not going to adopt "Gay Marriage" there is far too much opposition, and there will likely always be. People who are opposed to it, are not going to change their minds, and it's never going to be passed into law. So... pass a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, and when the "gay marriage" bullshit is completely off the table and can't possibly be obtained without repealing the amendment (near impossible) then maybe we can work towards some kind of comprehensive CU reforms as I've outlined? I admit it's a kind of convoluted way to get there, but it seems to be what is necessary to ultimately solve the problem.

I don't agree with your "(or more)" stipulation. The CU contracts could be issued for any TWO people, regardless of the relationship, regardless of sex or sexuality, but that would be as far as it could go, otherwise you'd have entire communities forming contracts together, and negate the purpose and intent of the contracts to begin with.
 
You're asking an entire society to buy into this, and millions of married couples to give up legal relationships and swap it out for another, just because less than 1% of the population has a problem. You're normally a smart guy Dixie- are you on crack?
 
Southern Man said:
You're asking an entire society to buy into this, and millions of married couples to give up legal relationships and swap it out for another, just because less than 1% of the population has a problem. You're normally a smart guy Dixie- are you on crack?
Click to expand...

Not asking anyone to "give up" or "swap out" anything. All legal relationships would remain the same. The state just wouldn't issue "marriage" licenses anymore, and in the place of that, would issue CU contracts. Courts would recognize an old "marriage license" as the same contract as a CU, for the sake of jurisprudence, that's all.

I'm not asking society to 'buy into' anything here, just offering a viable solution to resolve an issue, and give all sides what they claim to want. Traditional marriage and religious sanctity of marriage is protected, gay couples get the benefits of traditional couples, there is no issue of government being involved in sanctioning a religious custom and tradition, or establishing a law based on sexual behavior. It completely settles the issue once and for all, and gives everyone what they desire. It's fair, it's amicable, and it would probably be widely accepted by most Americans.
 
Dixie said:
Not asking anyone to "give up" or "swap out" anything. All legal relationships would remain the same. The state just wouldn't issue "marriage" licenses anymore, and in the place of that, would issue CU contracts. Courts would recognize an old "marriage license" as the same contract as a CU, for the sake of jurisprudence, that's all.

I'm not asking society to 'buy into' anything here, just offering a viable solution to resolve an issue, and give all sides what they claim to want. Traditional marriage and religious sanctity of marriage is protected, gay couples get the benefits of traditional couples, there is no issue of government being involved in sanctioning a religious custom and tradition, or establishing a law based on sexual behavior. It completely settles the issue once and for all, and gives everyone what they desire. It's fair, it's amicable, and it would probably be widely accepted by most Americans.
Click to expand...

Widely accepted by those who are brain damanged, maybe! :cof1:
 
We should not need the government’s permission to marry, IMO.

Nevertheless, marriage is regarded by some as a "public institution" which should be regulated by public authorities.

Others consider marriage to be a "contract" which requires registration in order to settle issues related to property and child custody.

The national government passed a law in 1923 establishing the authority of government over marriage.
 
Mister Wonderful said:
We should not need the government’s permission to marry, IMO.

Nevertheless, marriage is regarded by some as a "public institution" which should be regulated by public authorities.

Others consider marriage to be a "contract" which requires registration in order to settle issues related to property and child custody.

The national government passed a law in 1923 establishing the authority of government over marriage.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, we don't need the government's permission to marry. I can marry my mailbox if I want to, and the government can't arrest me for it, or stop me from having the ceremony. Again, I refer you to the example I've given before, I attended a Gay Wedding in 1985, in ALABAMA! No one stopped the ceremony, no one was arrested and hauled to jail, it wasn't prohibited, it wasn't disallowed.
 
Dixie said:
Technically speaking, we don't need the government's permission to marry. I can marry my mailbox if I want to, and the government can't arrest me for it, or stop me from having the ceremony. Again, I refer you to the example I've given before, I attended a Gay Wedding in 1985, in ALABAMA! No one stopped the ceremony, no one was arrested and hauled to jail, it wasn't prohibited, it wasn't disallowed.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see you try to claim your "mailbox" on your 1040. :cof1:
 
Dixie,

I think you have a valid solution to a very controversial and emotion packed issue. People who want to take the stand that homosexuals deserve the same rights and protections for things like inheritance, tax breaks and insurance coverage get what they want. People who hold to religious convictions that "marriage" is sacrosanct and belongs to those who believe it to be a holy sacrament are likewise satisfied.

Not being a pragmatic person by nature regarding strongly held beliefs, I certainly understand the winner takes all position...what has steered me to think a compromise is in order is that being someone who thinks marriage is a religious contract between a man, a woman and God I think your solution allows for people like me to control the argument thereby protecting at least a distinction.


As an aside I also agree that marriage is made a mockery of in modern times with all the scandals and multiple marriages....that is not a problem of the institution, but the courts. No fault divorce destroyed the contractual seriousness of marriage undermining the need to consider long and hard what you are going to commit to and who with!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top