Do you support Dixie's solution?

[wanderingbear]

Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible. I agree with Dixie. except that I wouldn't have bothered with the Government issued civil unions.Marriage is a religious institution and should not be regulated by the government.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It doesn't matter, you don't respect it, won't accept it, and will argue against it because of your bigotry on the issue. I may as well waste my time jerking off or doing something equally as fun. Your mind is made up, and nothing I have to say will ever change it, you've proven that.

Translation:

Once again I've allowed my alligator mouth to write a check that my hummingbird ass can't cash.
Please pity me.

 

[WinterBorn]

Its been 14 years...how long will we have to wait ?

I could believe it, the way the country is heading...polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality becoming legal is probably in our future too....but the pendulum returns to the center every time.... sooner or later....

This is just another attempt at fear-mongering. The press for gay marriage has always been about consenting adult. No one is suggesting that pediphilia and bestiality become legal, let alone that there be marriages for them.

Sex with children and sex with animals is illegal. Sex between two consenting adults of the same gender is not.

This is an attempt by idiots to scare people. And its bullshit.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible. I agree with Dixie. except that I wouldn't have bothered with the Government issued civil unions.Marriage is a religious institution and should not be regulated by the government.

What the "conservatives" who are arguing with Dixie seem to be forgetting is that their side claims to be all about less gov't interference. But in this specific situation they want the gov't to back them and to interfere.

Dixie's version not only removes gov't meddling from private marriages, it allows religions which are not restricted by the "one man/one woman" definition to marry who they choose.

Dixie may be a nutcase, but this solution would work out well.

But it would require that the gov't transfer all benefits bestowed on marriages to the civil unions.

 

[Timshel]

Homosexuals already have civil rights, those are not denied to any American, and you've not demonstrated where that is the case.

They are denied the right to marry the person of their choice. The court has always held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual.

You have not established discrimination, regardless of what you may think. The fact that you can't comprehend how "gay marriage" would be at the "expense" of religious tradition and custom, and that you do not consider that "anything special," reveals why you have a bigoted and stubborn view on this particular issue. I wonder if it's only this issue where your stubborn bigotry comes into play.

According to this idiocy, Jim Crow came at the expense of tradition and custom.

You do not have a right to limit the liberty of others in some useless attempt to preserve your traditions and customs. You may continue to practice your rituals as you like, but have no right to force others to adhere to those customs or traditions. It is your demand that amounts to a special right coming at the expense of others.

Again, marriage IS NOT owned by any one religion or religion in general.

 

[Timshel]

Lets get our history right.....

I contend that polygamy was never legal in this country. If I'm wrong you can enlighten me....
The Mormons of Utah were practicing polygamy while Utah was a territory, and Lincoln took care of that in 1862....
In no state of the US was it ever legal that I'm aware of....
===============================

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm

1862 July 8, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by Abraham Lincoln.

* First basic federal legislation by the Congress of the United States that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States".
* Bigamy punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years.
* All acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah "pertaining to polygamy and spiritual marriage" were annulled.

1879 January 6, in the first constitutional challenge to interpret the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the territorial court and declared that every civil government had the right to determine whether monogamy or polygamy should be the law of social life under its jurisdiction.

* Thus the Morrill act of 1862 was declared valid, any additional plural marriages were clearly breaking the law of the land. (Larson, pp. 78-79.)

Utah didn't even become a state until 1896.

I thought you guys were arguing that marriage was strictly a religious custom, but here you seem to argue that the state's definition trumps a religious one.

Regardless of whether the state recognized their marriages, the marriage customs of Mormons shows that marriage is not an unchanging custom of the state or religion.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible. I agree with Dixie. except that I wouldn't have bothered with the Government issued civil unions.Marriage is a religious institution and should not be regulated by the government.

The reason for contracts is to sort out all of the financial, custodial, and medical matters that go on between couples. Need for contracts will still exist.

Personally, I would ask for two types of contracts: Civil Union contracts which operate the same way current Marriage contracts do, except with a few more allowances such as gay unions, and Partner Contracts, which would be time-sensitive (2-5 years) that people could enter into that didn't want a lifetime obligation.