Do you support Dixie's solution?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OH, I forgot about your imaginary 75%!! LOL

I still don't understand why you're so against same sex marriages, especially since you went to such great lengths to say how some of your best friends are gay.

That's OK; because once the Supreme Court rules that same sex marriages are legal, you can then seek help for your bigotry and being scared.

I get my 75% number because I am conservative and make a conservative estimate. It's probably closer to 80 or 85%, if we held a national referendum. I base my number on the ballot initiatives in California and Washington state, which were around 70% opposed to gay marriage, and that is your liberal hotbed where support should have been highest.

And I am so sorry, but a Constitutional amendment trumps what the SCOTUS rules. You should study up on this, because they will not be your saviors.

I have explained why I am against same-sex marriage, I don't need to repeat it over and over because you are too blindly bigoted to read it. Do a search if you really want to understand it better, there are plenty of places I've gone over it before, and I am sure it's in the database. That said, I have adopted an open-minded approach to solving the issue and allowing gay couples to obtain the benefits they desire, and you are rejecting my solution. Who is scared? Who is the closed-minded intolerant? Who is stubbornly clinging to an extremist view and not willing to let go of their arguments to resolve the issue rationally and reasonably? It's not me! Go look in the mirror, bud!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I get my 75% number because I am conservative and make a conservative estimate. It's probably closer to 80 or 85%, if we held a national referendum. I base my number on the ballot initiatives in California and Washington state, which were around 70% opposed to gay marriage, and that is your liberal hotbed where support should have been highest.

And I am so sorry, but a Constitutional amendment trumps what the SCOTUS rules. You should study up on this, because they will not be your saviors.

I have explained why I am against same-sex marriage, I don't need to repeat it over and over because you are too blindly bigoted to read it. Do a search if you really want to understand it better, there are plenty of places I've gone over it before, and I am sure it's in the database. That said, I have adopted an open-minded approach to solving the issue and allowing gay couples to obtain the benefits they desire, and you are rejecting my solution. Who is scared? Who is the closed-minded intolerant? Who is stubbornly clinging to an extremist view and not willing to let go of their arguments to resolve the issue rationally and reasonably? It's not me! Go look in the mirror, bud!

Untrue; because the 75% is just the first number you pulled out of thin air and now you're stuck with it.

You're against same sex marriages; because they scare you, but you're going to have to accept the fact that they're going to happen.

Maybe afterwards you can find help for your biggotry.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your reading comprehension and your retentive abilities are sorely in need of some help; because I told you that the reason your offerings were rejected, is because they are unnecessary.

Well if they aren't necessary, why are we even discussing this? We'll just keep everything like it is, and forget about this issue altogether, no need to do anything at all, right? A solution is unnecessary! You said it yourself! Thanks!

My reading comprehension is just fine. I read that you want to reject a reasonable and viable solution to a problem that gives all sides a victory, and settles the debate forever. You want to reject a resolution that would enable gay couples to enjoy the benefits they desire, and also respect religious customs and traditions, and you are unable to tell me why you reject these, other than the claim they are "not necessary" which doesn't really make much sense to me.

What I presented is not "offerings" at all, it is a comprehensive solution to a problem with two sides. A problem that you seem to think doesn't need a resolution, because you think you can lobby the SCOTUS to rule something into law against the overwhelming will of the American people. You're going to get stood on your ear, and a Constitutional amendment forever recognizing marriage as being a union of a man and woman, because the people will never stand for judicial activism. And that's fine with me, I don't mind supporting such an amendment, because I think bigots like you will have to be silenced so the rest of us non-neanderthals can work toward a reasonable solution that satisfies all parties. In the end, that's what we will have, regardless of what you want.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Untrue; because the 75% is just the first number you pulled out of thin air and now you're stuck with it.

You're against same sex marriages; because they scare you, but you're going to have to accept the fact that they're going to happen.

Maybe afterwards you can find help for your biggotry.

No, I explained how I derived my number, you are just too blinded by your own bigotry and hate to read it. I am sorry you're such an intolerant redneck bigot, I hope you can overcome that someday. I'll pray for you.

And if you want to post over and over and over and over for the next 50 years, that I "may as well accept the fact" ...I will continue to remind you it is not a FACT that I have to accept, because it is not going to happen. Now what WILL happen, is you will eventually piss off enough Americans, that they will adopt a Constitutional amendment to silence you forever... that is a very REAL possibility.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well if they aren't necessary, why are we even discussing this? We'll just keep everything like it is, and forget about this issue altogether, no need to do anything at all, right? A solution is unnecessary! You said it yourself! Thanks!

My reading comprehension is just fine. I read that you want to reject a reasonable and viable solution to a problem that gives all sides a victory, and settles the debate forever. You want to reject a resolution that would enable gay couples to enjoy the benefits they desire, and also respect religious customs and traditions, and you are unable to tell me why you reject these, other than the claim they are "not necessary" which doesn't really make much sense to me.

What I presented is not "offerings" at all, it is a comprehensive solution to a problem with two sides. A problem that you seem to think doesn't need a resolution, because you think you can lobby the SCOTUS to rule something into law against the overwhelming will of the American people. You're going to get stood on your ear, and a Constitutional amendment forever recognizing marriage as being a union of a man and woman, because the people will never stand for judicial activism. And that's fine with me, I don't mind supporting such an amendment, because I think bigots like you will have to be silenced so the rest of us non-neanderthals can work toward a reasonable solution that satisfies all parties. In the end, that's what we will have, regardless of what you want.

Poor, poor, Dixie!!

Your proposals aren't necessary; because the Supreme Court is going to rule that all the cowardly bigots, that are trying to prevent same sex marriages, are wrong and that the rules they've been using are discrimination.

You're just going to have accept this and give over your old biggoted archaic ideas.

Yoiur acceptance that you are in error, may just help you to stop being scared.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I explained how I derived my number, you are just too blinded by your own bigotry and hate to read it. I am sorry you're such an intolerant redneck bigot, I hope you can overcome that someday. I'll pray for you.

And if you want to post over and over and over and over for the next 50 years, that I "may as well accept the fact" ...I will continue to remind you it is not a FACT that I have to accept, because it is not going to happen. Now what WILL happen, is you will eventually piss off enough Americans, that they will adopt a Constitutional amendment to silence you forever... that is a very REAL possibility.

Your explanation was just an excuse for you to use the number you made up and now you can't back down, unless you admit that you're foolish and naive.

I'm curious what next make believe story you're gong to build on, when you discover that you are the one that is going to be disappointed; because same sex marriages are going to be found to be legal.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your explanation was just an excuse for you to use the number you made up and now you can't back down, unless you admit that you're foolish and naive.

I'm curious what next make believe story you're gong to build on, when you discover that you are the one that is going to be disappointed; because same sex marriages are going to be found to be legal.

LMFAO! No, you dimwit... My estimation of 75% is an estimation, an opinion! I based it on the fact that the most liberal states in America who have had Gay Marriage on the ballots, rejected it by 70%, meaning you have 30% in favor of it, in the most liberal states in America. I presume that people in Iowa and Georgia would probably not be MORE likely to support Gay Marriage than people in California and Seattle! Conservatively, I gave you 25% nationwide, but again, I am not "stuck with" anything, you might not get 20% in a nationwide referendum.

Like I said, cling to your fantasies and dreams, you've got a LONG way to go to convince America of your stupidity. Meanwhile, the gay couples out there living their everyday lives are having to do without the many benefits they could be enjoying, all because you are hung up on some idiotic notion of something that has virtually non-existent support in America. Not even your glorious Messiah Obama is in favor of it... and that is saying something!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your proposals aren't necessary; because the Supreme Court is going to rule that all the cowardly bigots, that are trying to prevent same sex marriages, are wrong and that the rules they've been using are discrimination.

And again... IF that were to happen, America would easily pass a Constitutional amendment to nullify their decision and forever codify marriage as between a man and woman. The SCOTUS only rules on Constitutionality, it doesn't amend the Constitution, we the people get to do that. So, you can hope and dream all you like, it isn't going to happen in America. EVER!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

LMFAO! No, you dimwit... My estimation of 75% is an estimation, an opinion! I based it on the fact that the most liberal states in America who have had Gay Marriage on the ballots, rejected it by 70%, meaning you have 30% in favor of it, in the most liberal states in America. I presume that people in Iowa and Georgia would probably not be MORE likely to support Gay Marriage than people in California and Seattle! Conservatively, I gave you 25% nationwide, but again, I am not "stuck with" anything, you might not get 20% in a nationwide referendum.

Like I said, cling to your fantasies and dreams, you've got a LONG way to go to convince America of your stupidity. Meanwhile, the gay couples out there living their everyday lives are having to do without the many benefits they could be enjoying, all because you are hung up on some idiotic notion of something that has virtually non-existent support in America. Not even your glorious Messiah Obama is in favor of it... and that is saying something!

At least you've decided to become honest enough to admit that your 75% is just your OPINION!!

The reason that those Gay couples are being denied those benefits; is because scared biggoted people, like yourself, refuse to allow them to be joined in a same sex marriage.

Accept the fact that you secretly dislike Gay's being happy and this way you might be able to start working on those personal problems of yours.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And again... IF that were to happen, America would easily pass a Constitutional amendment to nullify their decision and forever codify marriage as between a man and woman. The SCOTUS only rules on Constitutionality, it doesn't amend the Constitution, we the people get to do that. So, you can hope and dream all you like, it isn't going to happen in America. EVER!

You're right, the Supreme Court is gong to rule on this.
Unfortunetly, for you, they're going to rule that it is illegal to deny Gay's the right and privilage to engage in a same sex marriage.

I hope you're able to survive your disappointment.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're right, the Supreme Court is gong to rule on this.
Unfortunetly, for you, they're going to rule that it is illegal to deny Gay's the right and privilage to engage in a same sex marriage.

I hope you're able to survive your disappointment.

LOL... IT won't bother me one bit. As I said, IF they do, we pass a Constitutional amendment and render their ruling irrelevant. So, either way, you aren't going to have Gay Marriage. Maybe that's what needs to happen, so we can "evolve" to a point where reasonable people can settle the issue with a simple solution as I have articulated? If so, that's fine with me, I just wish gay couples could get the benefits they wish to enjoy, and I think it's a shame people like you are preventing that from happening now.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Pixie, normal and enlightened people are hip to the intent of your scheme. A lot of conservatives have been shamed into keeping their homophobia in the closet, and in a hilarious attempt to appear sane and enlightened; they’re now running around clucking that they are for “civil unions, but not marriage!” .

Your smarter and more Machiavellian rightwing masters know that this is just a road block, to slow down the social progress of gay rights. Because, unlike you, they realize that your “proposal” will never work or be implemented. In short, it gives them cover from being labeled homophobes (which they are), while still allowing them to erect road blocks to social progress.

Alabama, Georgia, and the Deep South are never going to implement gay civil unions on their own initiative. Not in our life times. Not unless (as with the civil rights movement) Courts force southerners to do the right thing. Something that southerners themselves, generally, are incapable of doing themselves without being dragged kicking and screaming into doing it.

There is no federal law or federal authority to force all 50 states to adopt civil unions. And without that authority, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell the Deep South, or the more conservative red states will adopt them for gays.

You’ve obviously missed the whole point of the gay marriage issue. Which is not surprising; as reading the Sean Hannity website, or the Glenn Beck twitter is not an effective way to inform yourself. The reason gays want gay marriage recognized, is because it’s a federal-recognized contract, and as soon as DOMA is overturned, it’s a contract that has to be recognized in all states, regardless of where the marriage is performed. That Alabamans will be forced to recognize a gay couple married in Massachusetts, whether Alabamans like it or not. Civil unions cannot, and will not, be recognized in all 50 states. And the federal government cannot, and will not force states to accept the civil unions or domestic partnerships performed in other states.

Here’s some other facts Rush Limbaugh didn’t hip you too: family law, civil law, and a myriad of financial, personal, and healthcare benefits are tied to the marriage contract. At both the federal level, the state level, and also within the policies of tens of thousands of companies, corporate entities, insurers, and financial institutions. Re-writing the plans, policies, statutes, and regulations of all 50 states, within federal law, and for tens of thousands of private entities is a legislative and administrative task that is almost beyond comprehension. It would be a vast, and gi-normous administrative exercise that no sane people are willing to engage in. In contrast, it doesn't require any administrative effort at all to simply open up the marriage contract to same sex couples.

Finally, you will never get the nation to agree to get rid of "marriage" in favor of civil unions. There's not a nation, or society on the planet that has, or ever will, get rid of "marriage". Most people like the concept of marriage, for emotional, financial, and/or cultural reasons.

That’s why smart people know your proposal in unworkable, and is in fact cynical scheme. Your smarter masters in the wingnutosphere know it’s unworkable, but they hold it out as a smokescreen to keep their homophobia hidden from public view.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And to all the folks planning to marry, they can still get married, I haven't advocated banning marriage. Churches can still do as they please, people can still have wedding ceremonies, everything is still the same, we wake up tomorrow and the sun still rises.

There certainly IS a problem, evidenced by the monumental number of posts on this topic. From my perspective, the problem is two sided and we are at an impasse. My solution addresses both sides complaints and concerns, and allows us to move on. Some people obviously don't want to move on or find a solution to the problem, short of getting 100% of what they want and denying the other side anything at all. To me, that is textbook Bigotry. We should work toward reasonable solutions to our problems, and if a way can be found (as I have) to resolve an issue to everyone's reasonable satisfaction, that is what we should do.

I don't support Gay Marriage, I never will, because same-sex unions are simply NOT marriage, in my opinion. But I do realize and understand there are many people living in same-sex relationships, which function just as a traditional marriage, and they shouldn't be denied the benefits of marriage because they can't 'marry' each other. I also respect the religious sanctity of traditional marriage and what that means to the church and religion. The government really shouldn't be involved in sanctioning a religious tradition and custom, and I understand that aspect as well. My proposal solves all these issues, all sides to this issue, and takes it off the table forever. The problem is solved, the debates are over, we never have to argue back and forth about it again, it's settled! What is wrong with that?

I pretty much agree with you for once Dixie. Having gay siblings it would be nice to see this option available to them. They have been in monogomous relationships for a long time. That should be respected. I also agree with you that I view marriage as a holy covenant between man/woman and their creator.

But let me ask you this Dixie, if a recognized Church, such as, the Anglican or the Methodist were to recognize gay unions as a holy covenant too, would you accept those as "marriages" in your eyes?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Pixie, normal and enlightened people are hip to the intent of your scheme. A lot of conservatives have been shamed into keeping their homophobia in the closet, and in a hilarious attempt to appear sane and enlightened; they’re now running around clucking that they are for “civil unions, but not marriage!” .

Your smarter and more Machiavellian rightwing masters know that this is just a road block, to slow down the social progress of gay rights. Because, unlike you, they realize that your “proposal” will never work or be implemented. In short, it gives them cover from being labeled homophobes (which they are), while still allowing them to erect road blocks to social progress.

Alabama, Georgia, and the Deep South are never going to implement gay civil unions on their own initiative. Not in our life times. Not unless (as with the civil rights movement) Courts force southerners to do the right thing. Something that southerners themselves, generally, are incapable of doing themselves without being dragged kicking and screaming into doing it.

There is no federal law or federal authority to force all 50 states to adopt civil unions. And without that authority, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell the Deep South, or the more conservative red states will adopt them for gays.

You’ve obviously missed the whole point of the gay marriage issue. Which is not surprising; as reading the Sean Hannity website, or the Glenn Beck twitter is not an effective way to inform yourself. The reason gays want gay marriage recognized, is because it’s a federal-recognized contract, and as soon as DOMA is overturned, it’s a contract that has to be recognized in all states, regardless of where the marriage is performed. That Alabamans will be forced to recognize a gay couple married in Massachusetts, whether Alabamans like it or not. Civil unions cannot, and will not, be recognized in all 50 states. And the federal government cannot, and will not force states to accept the civil unions or domestic partnerships performed in other states.

Here’s some other facts Rush Limbaugh didn’t hip you too: family law, civil law, and a myriad of financial, personal, and healthcare benefits are tied to the marriage contract. At both the federal level, the state level, and also within the policies of tens of thousands of companies, corporate entities, insurers, and financial institutions. Re-writing the plans, policies, statutes, and regulations of all 50 states, within federal law, and for tens of thousands of private entities is a legislative and administrative task that is almost beyond comprehension. It would be a vast, and gi-normous administrative exercise that no sane people are willing to engage in. In contrast, it doesn't require any administrative effort at all to simply open up the marriage contract to same sex couples.

Finally, you will never get the nation to agree to get rid of "marriage" in favor of civil unions. There's not a nation, or society on the planet that has, or ever will, get rid of "marriage". Most people like the concept of marriage, for emotional, financial, and/or cultural reasons.

That’s why smart people know your proposal in unworkable, and is in fact cynical scheme. Your smarter masters in the wingnutosphere know it’s unworkable, but they hold it out as a smokescreen to keep their homophobia hidden from public view.

You make some excellent points. I was unaware of the legal distinctions between marriage and civil unions. Thank your for pointing these out. I find them disturbing and that there should be a "fix" so that the two are equivalent at both the State and Federal level because, I agree with Dixie and other Conservatives that their is a profound religious principle involved here.

I do agree with you that "Civil Unions" legal status should not be used as cynical bottle neck to prevent gay couples from enjoying their rights, liberties and freedoms.

Though I am on the fence about this I do agree with conservative posters that "Marriage" is a religious covenant.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Mott, first of all, thanks for your support. Don't let Prissy fool you with his hyperbole, this is not a "right-wing" idea, or some kind of trick or roadblock, and it isn't something you'll likely hear from Rush, Beck or Hannity....although, I don't know that they might not agree with the common sense as well, but they aren't advocating anything like this now.

As for family law, civil law, and the myriad of financial, personal, and healthcare benefits that are tied to the marriage contract, I addressed this. The old marriage contracts would effectively become a CU contract, nothing would need to be changed. Just like a new $20 bill doesn't render the old $20's useless, they still spend the same. A federal act supersedes state laws, just like the Civil Rights act or any number of Federal acts passed through the years, so that aspect of his argument fails as well. All sates would have to recognize the federal law, pursuant to the Constitution. Finally, I have not advocated "getting rid of marriage for gay civil unions" as Prissy put it, if you read my proposal, it doesn't "get rid" of anything, except the issue of gay marriage. It allows us to take government out of the "marriage" business, and eliminate any entanglements with religion, while enabling gay couples, or any couple for that matter, to form a partnership in contract, for the purposes of insurance, finance, etc. This is what the gay community claims it wants, so I don't really understand why people like Prissy are opposed. I guess he is mired in his own bigotry, like USFREEDOM.

Now on to your question:

But let me ask you this Dixie, if a recognized Church, such as, the Anglican or the Methodist were to recognize gay unions as a holy covenant too, would you accept those as "marriages" in your eyes?

From MY perspective, marriage is something within the heart between two individuals, it isn't something established by either a document or a church. Whether I personally "recognize" something as marriage, is beside the point, it doesn't matter what I recognize, or anyone else, for that matter. There is a legal recognition by the state, which is vital to numerous circumstances, and that is why we have marriage licenses, and "recognize" marriage to begin with. My proposal would simply change the law to recognize a contract between two consenting adults, in place of the old marriage licensing. Marriage would then become an individual tenant, meaning whatever it means to the individual, and not subject to a state or national definition we must all adhere to. If churches want to recognize "gay marriages" that's their business, I have nothing to say about what they do, nor should I, nor should my government.

I hope I have answered some of your concerns, I just wanted to point out that people like Prissy and USF are invested in their activist agenda, and that is their primary reason for objection to this. To them, it doesn't matter that gay couples don't have the benefits of married couples, and it doesn't matter how many years these couples have to suffer the indignity of that, they had rather have the "issue" to pound away at their adversaries with, to have a "banner" to fight under, something to rile up their liberal activist base with, and incite hate and vitriol toward the right because of their refusal to accept gay marriage. Actually SOLVING the problem, is secondary to them! The only "solution" they are interested in, is ramming something down our throats through activist courts, and further dividing us as a people. It's a shame, because I think I have demonstrated, the left and right can come together with a reasonable compromise, to address a problem to the satisfaction of all sides, and actually solve a problem together as Americans.

 

[DamnYankee]

And to all the folks planning to marry, they can still get married, I haven't advocated banning marriage. Churches can still do as they please, people can still have wedding ceremonies, everything is still the same, we wake up tomorrow and the sun still rises.

There certainly IS a problem, evidenced by the monumental number of posts on this topic. From my perspective, the problem is two sided and we are at an impasse. My solution addresses both sides complaints and concerns, and allows us to move on. Some people obviously don't want to move on or find a solution to the problem, short of getting 100% of what they want and denying the other side anything at all. To me, that is textbook Bigotry. We should work toward reasonable solutions to our problems, and if a way can be found (as I have) to resolve an issue to everyone's reasonable satisfaction, that is what we should do.

I don't support Gay Marriage, I never will, because same-sex unions are simply NOT marriage, in my opinion. But I do realize and understand there are many people living in same-sex relationships, which function just as a traditional marriage, and they shouldn't be denied the benefits of marriage because they can't 'marry' each other. I also respect the religious sanctity of traditional marriage and what that means to the church and religion. The government really shouldn't be involved in sanctioning a religious tradition and custom, and I understand that aspect as well. My proposal solves all these issues, all sides to this issue, and takes it off the table forever. The problem is solved, the debates are over, we never have to argue back and forth about it again, it's settled! What is wrong with that?

What you don't understand Dix is that most queers don't support gay marriage either. This is an issue supported by a militant fringe who have convinced enough socially liberal folk that this is somehow an issue of human rights. These lib-tards see this as a way to demonize social conservatives for political gain. I'm not buying any of it.

 

[apple0154]

Mott, first of all, thanks for your support. Don't let Prissy fool you with his hyperbole, this is not a "right-wing" idea, or some kind of trick or roadblock, and it isn't something you'll likely hear from Rush, Beck or Hannity....although, I don't know that they might not agree with the common sense as well, but they aren't advocating anything like this now.

As for family law, civil law, and the myriad of financial, personal, and healthcare benefits that are tied to the marriage contract, I addressed this. The old marriage contracts would effectively become a CU contract, nothing would need to be changed. Just like a new $20 bill doesn't render the old $20's useless, they still spend the same. A federal act supersedes state laws, just like the Civil Rights act or any number of Federal acts passed through the years, so that aspect of his argument fails as well. All sates would have to recognize the federal law, pursuant to the Constitution. Finally, I have not advocated "getting rid of marriage for gay civil unions" as Prissy put it, if you read my proposal, it doesn't "get rid" of anything, except the issue of gay marriage. It allows us to take government out of the "marriage" business, and eliminate any entanglements with religion, while enabling gay couples, or any couple for that matter, to form a partnership in contract, for the purposes of insurance, finance, etc. This is what the gay community claims it wants, so I don't really understand why people like Prissy are opposed. I guess he is mired in his own bigotry, like USFREEDOM.

Now on to your question:


From MY perspective, marriage is something within the heart between two individuals, it isn't something established by either a document or a church. Whether I personally "recognize" something as marriage, is beside the point, it doesn't matter what I recognize, or anyone else, for that matter. There is a legal recognition by the state, which is vital to numerous circumstances, and that is why we have marriage licenses, and "recognize" marriage to begin with. My proposal would simply change the law to recognize a contract between two consenting adults, in place of the old marriage licensing. Marriage would then become an individual tenant, meaning whatever it means to the individual, and not subject to a state or national definition we must all adhere to. If churches want to recognize "gay marriages" that's their business, I have nothing to say about what they do, nor should I, nor should my government.

I hope I have answered some of your concerns, I just wanted to point out that people like Prissy and USF are invested in their activist agenda, and that is their primary reason for objection to this. To them, it doesn't matter that gay couples don't have the benefits of married couples, and it doesn't matter how many years these couples have to suffer the indignity of that, they had rather have the "issue" to pound away at their adversaries with, to have a "banner" to fight under, something to rile up their liberal activist base with, and incite hate and vitriol toward the right because of their refusal to accept gay marriage. Actually SOLVING the problem, is secondary to them! The only "solution" they are interested in, is ramming something down our throats through activist courts, and further dividing us as a people. It's a shame, because I think I have demonstrated, the left and right can come together with a reasonable compromise, to address a problem to the satisfaction of all sides, and actually solve a problem together as Americans.

As Cypress pointed out in msg 52, "normal and enlightened people are hip to the intent of your scheme."

There will always be people trying to find a way to exploit the difference between marriage and civil union. We saw that with the Black people and the "same but different" nonsense that was first used as an equal rights compromise.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As Cypress pointed out in msg 52, "normal and enlightened people are hip to the intent of your scheme."

There will always be people trying to find a way to exploit the difference between marriage and civil union. We saw that with the Black people and the "same but different" nonsense that was first used as an equal rights compromise.

Please tell me what the basis is for your parallel to segregation? I am not advocating that we give the gays civil unions while we keep marriage. If that were what I was saying, I could see your point. You've simply tuned out what I have to say because you are a partisan jerk who can't find a way to be open-minded. Prissy is full of shit just like you, and neither of you are offering ANYTHING to refute my idea, or tell us why you oppose it. And really, there is no reason to oppose it, other than to hang on to the issue because you believe you can get some political mileage out of it. Exploiting the adversity of gay couples for your own political interests... that's what you are doing here.

What's really astounding, is how loyal black people and gays are to Liberal activists like you and Priss. You don't really give a shit about their needs or concerns, you just pretend you do, while rejecting any sort of solution to the problems, and yammering on with your hate-filled rants at the right. When is America going to wake up and wise up to this?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What you don't understand Dix is that most queers don't support gay marriage either. This is an issue supported by a militant fringe who have convinced enough socially liberal folk that this is somehow an issue of human rights. These lib-tards see this as a way to demonize social conservatives for political gain. I'm not buying any of it.

That's not true. I have two gay siblings. Both support gay marriage issues but both feel that in the grand scheme of things and our national priorities and common sense, it's about 300th on their list of priorities. It would be nice to have the same freedoms that we do and they advocate this.

Just because many gays are not activist on this issue does not mean they are not involved or supportive of it.

As an example. I'm not an environmental activist and never really have been but I am a deeply committed environmentalist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As Cypress pointed out in msg 52, "normal and enlightened people are hip to the intent of your scheme."

There will always be people trying to find a way to exploit the difference between marriage and civil union. We saw that with the Black people and the "same but different" nonsense that was first used as an equal rights compromise.

I honestly don't think that's Dixie's intent here. I know I pretty much share his views on this and all cynicism aside, I deeply belief that gays should have the same domestic partnership rights as heterosexuals, but to me marriage is a religious institution as well as a civil one.