My solution. OUTLAW ALL MARRIAGE!

[helderheid]

Civil unions for all - you wanna get married? Go to your church and leave the government OUT OF IT.

Works for the Netherlands...

[KyndCulture]

1. Works for me...

I tried it twice, fucked it up both times. Any gay couple would like to have my (slighly used) right to marry... I'll happily sign it over to you.

[helderheid]

2. I'm on my 2nd.

[Kikosexy2]

7. But what would ...

I do with my Vera Wang gown?....

[Justice Is Comin]

3. I think the answer to marriage is simple.

Make it like a fishing license. You have to renew every year. If you don't like each other anymore, don't sign up.

If you don't want to lose who you got, don't make them mad. Divorce lawyers are out of business.

Marriages on yearly contract, nobody excluded, everybody wins.

[helderheid]

5. I love that - I'd have a renewal party every year!

[Kashka-Kat]

4. FINALLY some sense! I agree totally. Funny that these people who

claim to be anti big govt. somehow need government sanctification of THEIR sexual relationships-- why????

[KittyWampus]

24. Marriage isn't JUST about sex. It's about 2 people joining households

and taking legal responsibility for each other.

Sex is but a small part and really shouldn't even be ESSENTIAL!

If two people are committed in friendship and don't want to have sex, they should be able to join their households.

Example, a girl friend and myself... we aren't lesbians but why can't we join households?

[StellaBlue]

26. Hence 'civil partnerships'

Ding! Ding!

[helderheid]

32. Kennedy basically just said the same thing!

[jobycom]

6. Sounds good to me. Civil Unions for the state, marriage for churches, whic

if I recall my Constitution, is supposed to be separate from the state in the first place. Let churches discriminate to their little hate-filled heart's content, but force the government to obey it's founding charter. Hice plane, HH!

[helderheid]

8. Well like I said, works for the Netherlands :)

[LittleClarkie]

9. That's hardly outlawing marriage

and I've heard my pastor say similar things, as in, "Why do we need a marriage license anyway. How did the state get involved in something that is essentially a church ritual."

Problem is, some folks, gay or straight, want that church wedding. If civil unions was good enough, people wouldn't be having such a hairy cat fit about how most of our candidates last time only supported civil unions, and not marriage.

So I suspect you'll have to go back to the drawing board on your solution.

[helderheid]

11. In Holland, in order to be recognized as a legal couple, you get

a civil union. Those who want a church wedding then do that as well but the church wedding has nothing to do with the government or the couple's status in it.

[StellaBlue]

16. You still can't force a church to perform a ceremony it disagrees with.

So......

[LittleClarkie]

27. True. But I've seen activists just go apeshit at the suggestion

that they are being excluded from having what they want due to their orientation. They feel as if it's a civil rights issue. Would we let churches say that they wouldn't marry black people?

Btw, I'm devil's advocating here. I'm pretty much seeing the same problem you are.

[StellaBlue]

30. Yeah

Those activists must be missing the point that a group of people who get together privately to "worship" can pretty set their own rules. It's called freedom of religion. Even though I am an atheist who thinks religion is malignant and stupid, I would still fight for the rights of religious groups to practice as they see fit, so long as it does no harm to others. Then, the devil's advocate will say, "But they are doing harm to gays and lesbians by refusing to marry them!". I would maintain that the location of one's marriage, which, in the eyes of the law is validated by the MARRIAGE LICENSE, is more a matter of privilege than right. I forsee major splits in Protestant denominations over this.

[helderheid]

31. Well I would choose to go to a church that WOULD marry me (if I were

gay or if I were not white, etc.) - why would I go to a church that discriminates me?

[bryant69]

10. Totally agree

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Stinky The Clown]

12. This idea has been floated here in River City before and it didn't fly.

I think it is a VERY reasonable solution. The state confers civil unions on everyone and is just plain OUT of the 'marriage' business. The churches (or equivalents) confer 'marriage'.

In fact, this is pretty much what we have to today (by the powers vested in my by God and the State of Whatever, I now pronounce you ..... ). If we want to define 'marriage', its quite simple. It is a term confered by a non-governmental entity in line with the precepts of that entity.

I don't recall all the reasons for objection, but I *do* recall they existed.

[helderheid]

34. I'd be really interested in the reasons for objection - thanks for this!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. This makes sense. nt.

[StellaBlue]

14. This has made sense to me since I was a small child

and first starting thinking about gender poltics. Yes, seriously. :crazy:

I don't get what the big deal is. I don't want to get married, period. Why should the State be involved at all? I think everyone ought to be able to - without hiring a lawyer - designated their 'next of kin' for insurance, medical decisions, etc. It could be your wife or your grandma. No matter to me, or to the State.

[Clark2008]

18. Just because you don't want to be married doesn't mean

I don't.

Marriage licenses are issued by the state in order to grant the participants a status for insurance, tax and other governmental purposes.

You don't have to be conferred in a church if you don't want to (I wasn't), but I LIKE the idea of being married and not civil unioned.

[StellaBlue]

22. But you should be able to do all that WITHOUT having to marry

is my point.

I should be able to designate a person for all those functions, without having to hire a lawyer and wasting time and $$$ like my homosexual brothers and sisters have to do currently.

I still don't understand the basic reason why the State needs to sanctify or officialize two people having sex who think they won't ever want to have sex with anyone else again. :shrug:

In my opinion, folly. In my opinion.

[KittyWampus]

28. Everyone MUST go to the state courthouse for a liscense to make

the joining of two households legal.

That is what is legally required. And there is zero reason why that liscense should be called "marriage", especially since the Fundies are adamant about reserving the word "marriage" for something sanctioned by a religion or marked at ceremonial function.

If you want more then a civil liscense from the state, then go get "married" by a ship captain, judge or clergyman at a ceremony.

[paparush]

15. Amen !!!((hey, now that's ironic))

[npincus]

17. or "MURGE" as B*sh mispronounces it.

[Terran1212]

19. Straight from the West Wing (NBC)

[helderheid]

20. really? I missed that one!

Admittedly I only started watching in the last season.

[Terran1212]

21. I don't watch it much but

I do remember one episode where one Congressman proclaimed he would introduce legislation to just end government-sanctioned marriage altogether because people disagreed with him being a homosexual.

[helderheid]

23. Well damn!

:) Cool!

[bigbrother05]

25. Here, here!

The government and laws should be about enforcing contracts, etc. A civil union is a contractual thing that confers certain rights and holds up in a court of law. Ministers (rabbis, priests, shamans, etc.) are granted the authority to perform "legal" marriages by the state and there are guidelines on who gets to do it. Judges, Justices of the Peace, ship captains, etc. can also perform "legal" ceremonies. It is all pretty practical if you use a little common sense.

How many states recognize "common law" marriages? That takes on "legal" status after a period of time when the couple proclaim and act as if married without any ceremonial rite performed by an authorizing official.

Got married over 30 years ago in a church ceremony. Had all of 12 people there with no family members from either side, just friends all around. There is no way that any two consenting adults joining together will add or detract from our life or happiness together.

[Cleita]

29. Works for me!

:thumbsup:

[helderheid]

33. YEA, I think Kennedy is making this case!!!

[Swamp Rat]

35. I've always thought this would be good too.

You want a hetero church marriage? Fine! Leave the rest of us (and the government) out of it.

[helderheid]

36. or a gay marriage for that matter. :)