After yet another round of debates regarding gay marriage, I can't help but wonder why prop 8 was not a bill to legalize gay civil unions.

For those who don't know, a gay civil union would be a contract giving a gay couple various legal rights that are given to a heterosexual couple when they marry. These rights would include things like the ability to file a joint tax return. The power to approve or deny medical treatment for significant other, and a few other such legal rights.

In fact it would likely be a good idea to also allow heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to enter into such a civil union as well.

If this issue was really about treating gay people in a fair and equal way, then this would be an acceptable solution. The fact that the term marriage (a religious term) must be used gives people a reason to fear that freedom of religion could be infringed upon.

Our government has always been unwise in decision making.


I mean look at the 60's or was it the 70's... anyway... They could have taxed the drugs that had hit in the US. Yet, focused/payed more to try to eliminate them. Which they still do to this day.

We're talking about something simple and not all gay/lesbians are wanting the christian "wedding" which many proclaim that's what they want. Which instead its simply to be recognized and most importantly to get what they are in need of. Insurance/WILL's/Children etc etc etc

As you said and many do say "Holy Matrimony" and the divorce rates are way over the top. Yet there are many gays/lesbians that have been together way longer then most have.

There's a joke a comedian made (forget his name)

"Let them (gays) suffer the way we do (straight)"

A smack in the face if you ask me. Besides, why do people still have to govern others till this day.

What I find so funny is if it is such a religious thing then why is the divorce rate over %60? It must not be all that sacred. Why do so many Christians have multiple marriages? Just asking

Dont you swear to god to love ECT ECT to death does us part?

What about the people who right their own vows?

I have posted several times that marriage is a religous sexual commitment & that state should not recognize it at all. It's a church issue. At age 18 we should all name heirs, benificiaries & someone to be a POA in case of medical emergencies. Minor children should be provided for 1st, & that is all the state should have to say about it.

That's just it though... Marriage IS NOT ALWAYS RELIGIOUS. That's why such religions try to mend/meld away at every corner they can get a peak on.

Religions like to bash the outsiders then falsify another not so religious group. Yet, within the same breath capture there beliefs ROLL-it-UP in one then exile them. (I wont go into detail about this since, hey its religion)


Heres the best part; however the worst.

Here in Salt Lake, Utah we're the MORMON capital. Cept for me If no one has herd of this news. Within the last week. A announced "Bishop" or whatever I DONT REALLY care. Had raped 3 girls (children) and one of the victims father had been approached by the "Bishop" the father -HEY- guess what? Was also Mormon; gave him a hug and the father did this to ACCEPT FORGIVENESS. He the "Bishop" is being let go. Not prosecuted or anything. Think of that girl- where she'd need a hero at that time her own father just passing it by.

But hey gays cant marry into love..


.........RIGHT

I'm gay and I never had a problem with civil unions if it actually did cover all the bases legally for the couple, so far that is not exactly the case from what I hear. But to be honest no one has proved to me that marriage was ever a religious institution, if you can I would appreciate the education.

What my gay friends have told me is that they too would have no problem with it either but they say that to be only allowed this sort of union would do nothing to address the second class status that gays feel, if I said that right. In other words, only a man and a woman can take part in marriage. And only heathens and the lesser among us can have marriage. Kinda insulting don't cha think?

If Christians weren't so self righteous we might accept civil union as the solution. But I can hear people teaching their kids now. You don't want civil union, that is for bad people, marriage is for good people. If you think that's ridiculous, I heard an 11 year old explain it to an adult one day. Marrying is for god's people...his exact words and you can bet they didn't come from another kid.

So tolerating civil unions is just pacification to me and an easy out for politians and religious folks who feel forced to compremise. Again if it were not for religion it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

boo2u,

While this might not be the perfect final solution, I think it is a useful compromise.

Hum a compromise. That's awful noble of ya. Look at the stats on marriage! 60% divorce rate. How many christions in that figure do you think? You can guess it dosnt have to be accurate.

Whats those word..I swear to Love, honor and Obey to death does us part. Who is that sworn to?

I do have the perfect solution. Change the law to read "Civil Unions" and allow marriage to be what it was meant to be - a traditional religious ceremony.

The only change for the religious would be - at the top of the current liscence and certificate instead of "Marriage" it would say "Civil Union". After all, it is not the religious ceremony that is of interest to the "contractual agreement" with the government, it is the contract itself. Why should it matter to the religious what the government calls it?

Why should any religious person object to the change on a government contract, when they can still have a 'marriage ceremony' in the tradations to which they are accustomed?

If the contract name is changed from marriage to civil union,(for everyone) why would any Christian object? For all those Christians who claim no ill will to homosexuals, but only the protection of their religious rights, this would certainly aleviate the problem - wouldn't it?

Of course logic was never the strong suit of the truly bigoted!

I am straight but would support either. I just dont think you should have to compromise

I say get rid of marriage altogether, it will get rid of alot of the issues

I like Boo's position.

Call all ceremonies done by anyone other than clergy are civil unions those done by clergy would be marriages and each would entitle the persons in the civil union or marriage the same rights and responsibilities.

Melaschasm, I do appreciate that some would even consider a compromise, but I wish that people could put themselves in our shoes to see that even compromise such as you suggest will never be equal to some or any of the gay community.

Maybe there is something I am still missing, but the difference between me and the church is that I am still willing to look at other options that don't in the end leaving me and millions of other gays still a second class citizen or still outcasts.

So the compromise is let us use the word Marriage as you do in court or in church, churches that allow it, not all churches will have to allow it, after all why would i want to marry in a church who sees me as less than a person in their eyes. But let us call it marriage, and the church gets to continue being as mean and intolerant as they have always been, because in the end the church will not change anyway and if the church will not change nor will it's followers, after all 99 percent do as they are told to do..