Excuse me, can you direct me to the Larry Criag shitter?

[sirs]

Marriage Office: gays to this counter, straights to that counter.

Why would there be two different counters?

Because that's what Tee thinks the right would require.  Kinda the way he thought I'd want some professor silenced that I disagree with, minus any shred of supportive evidence

[BT]

Of course you don't.  That's because you don't have any problem whatsoever with setting up a second class of American citizenship, officially.  Marriage Office: gays to this counter, straights to that counter.

To be honest  like Viktors idea best. Ge the state out of the mariage business alltogether.

[Amianthus]

To be honest  like Viktors idea best. Ge the state out of the mariage business alltogether.

I agree with that...

[Michael Tee]

<<Why would there be two different counters?>>

It's more efficient.  One processes only civil unions, one processes only marriages.  Different kinds of forms for different classes of citizen.  Why are there different kinds of forms?    Because there are two different kinds of union, one civil union, one marriage.  Why are there different kinds of union?  Because there are two different kinds of people getting married, gay and straight.    Straight can't marry straight in the same way that gay marries gay.  Well, what about white and black?  Can't we have one form for whites and one for black, one place that marries whites and one place that marries blacks?  NO cuz we bin there, done that.  Got out of it.  What about gay/straight?  Didn't get out of it.  Yet.

[Amianthus]

Funny, I see no need for two different forms. At most, one additional line on the current form, with two check boxes. One labeled "Traditional Marriage" and the other labeled "Civil Union."

More than likely, just a change of title on the current form from "Application for Marriage License" to "Application for Marriage / Civil Union License".

Just because you see the need for a new bureaucracy every time the government does something does not mean it's actually needed.

[Richpo64]

>>Funny, I see no need for two different forms.<<

there will have to be at least 4 different forms. Don'f forget, each one has to be provided in Spanish.

[Michael Tee]

OF COURSE you can do it all at one counter and on one form.  The point was that two distinct  classes of individuals are being created, by law, one class that can marry through civil union, one that can marry through marriage.  Just like there were two classes of individual Americans, one who could drink at the WHITE fountain, one who could drink at the COLORED.  That is discrimination, obviously.  The only point in not letting the gays marry each other in a conventional marriage, i.e., avail themselves of the same privileges as their straight fellow-citizens, is that some people's religious beliefs would be offended.  Adam and Steve's freedom is being cut back so as not to offend conservative religious feelings.  Somebody's religion is dictating to Adam and Steve what they can or can't do.  And that ain't right.

[sirs]

OF COURSE you can do it all at one counter and on one form.  The point was that two distinct  classes of individuals are being created, by law, one class that can marry through civil union, one that can marry through marriage.  Just like there were two classes of individual Americans, one who could drink at the WHITE fountain, one who could drink at the COLORED.  

Your analogy is flawed, since both Ami, and pretty much anyone else isn't advocating anything other that 1 fountain/form.  You seem to be the only one trying to make this about 2 classes of citizens, parking them into 2 lines.  Are you planning on looking down at anyone who's under a civil union?  tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Michael Tee]

The point is, why create a "civil union" in the first place, if the people taking part in them are the equals in all respects of married people?

It actually would be marginally more efficient to have two counters and two forms for processing, there'd be less errors in counting, a pamphlet explaining civil unions could be given out at the gay counter, whatever ancillary materials are appropriate to one or the other group would be concentrated at the appropriate counter, the clerk wouldn't have to make sure the right box was checked, etc.  The analogy didn't DEPEND on separate facilities, they were just illustrative, but as it happens they work fine.

The real problem of course is that there are two officially recognized types of marrying people, just as there were two officially recognized races.  And in both cases the division was artificial and resulted from a majority group's discomfort with a minority group and a desire for separation.  Not letting a gay enter into "our" kind of marriage is pretty much the same thing as not letting a black drink from "our" water fountain.  They're legally stigmatized for being different.

[BT]

The point is, why create a "civil union" in the first place, if the people taking part in them are the equals in all respects of married people?

The point is equal rights under the law. Gays want the same privileges that heteros have when in a long term relationship. Civil unions give them that.

I don't see why the solution is unacceptable. Seems like a win win for both sides. And takes  lot of digging in of heels off the table.

[Michael Tee]

<<The point is equal rights under the law. Gays want the same privileges that heteros have when in a long term relationship. Civil unions give them that.>>

That's like saying blacks want the same education as whites.  Separate but equal could give 'em that.  But what you're missing is just the fact that it has to be separate is degrading to them.  It means that there are whites who are made uncomfortable by their presence: fair enough, they can deal with that, but the insult is that the law validates the prejudice of those whites against them by giving in to it, by creating a separate school for them.

It is the same principle with the civil union status - - there's no real need for it.  But some religious people are uncomfortable that THEY (gays) are availing themselves of something which they (the religious) think belongs only to heteros; and that's fine, the gays can deal with the disapprobation of the religious conservatives.  But it's when the law steps in and takes sides, effectively boosting the cause of the religious right, that the insult is made; the gays are "second-classed" into a whole category (civil unions) created just specially for them, only because the religious right were offended (not harmed in any demonstrable way, just offended) by the gays' availing themselves of an institution which every other citizen has a RIGHT to avail himself or herself of.

<<I don't see why the solution is unacceptable. Seems like a win win for both sides. >>   

No it's not.  It's an official, legal denigration of gays.  They know it and so do a lot of other people.  There's a right (to marry) and it's not available to them.  It's available to any other citizen but not them.  And to "console" them for not being allowed that right, a whole new right (which, incidentally, nobody else would ever want) is created specially for them.  Given the circumstances in which the new right was created and the continuing unavailability of the original right which sparked the controversy in the first place, it's impossible to see this as anything other than second-class citizenship for gays.  It's basically intolerable.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[BT]

So the issue is not about equal rights. It is about one segment of society, in this case, gays and their supporters ramming their definition  of marriage down the throats of those who believe differently, in this case religious and NON RELIGIOUS folk who are partial to the traditional definition of marriage.

Why don't you just say this is so in the first place.

[Michael Tee]

<<So the issue is not about equal rights. It is about one segment of society, in this case, gays and their supporters ramming their definition  of marriage down the throats of those who believe differently, in this case religious and NON RELIGIOUS folk who are partial to the traditional definition of marriage.>>

Yeah, you're right, BT.  It's about the definition of a word being "rammed down the throats" of people who won't accept that definition.  It's all about lexicography.  Never before in the history of America has such passion been aroused over how a word should be defined.  Usually such disputes are only between lexicographers, but here the passion over language has spread to the general population.  It's really nice to see people taking an interest in such arcane matters.

Better watch it, BT, you're giving sophistry a bad name.

[BT]

The whole Same Sex Marriage issue is hung up on semantics. Failure to compromise by gay rights advocates on terminology iw what is slowing down the whole thing. Civil Unions would have been the law of the land if they were the least bit flexible.

Just another example of the fringe holding up progress.

Same as UHC.