Marriage is:

[Nathan Poe]

From what I understand all these things are available to those involved in civil unions already.

Not all of them, because civil unions are only valid in the state they are granted in -- the fed doesn't recognize them.

Furthermore, certain benefits (a total of about 1100, give or take) are granted on the federal level, not the state -- some obvious, such as tax benefits and social security, other not so much until you ever need them, such as the right to take leave from work to care for a family member. Since the federal government does not recognize civil unions, these benefits don't apply.

Also, since civil unions only apply to a state, if you need to move, the best-case scenario is you have to do it again. Worst-case scenario, your new state doesn't recognize civil unions.

How would you like your marriage to be invalid over the state line?

[OtherCheek]

Among the many benefits of marriage are visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights in the event of death, end of life decisions (pull the plug or not, etc.), certain tax benefits, etc... My understanding is that these are the sort of benefits that gay couples are looking for in regards to marriage.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't marriage between siblings and the father and his 21-year old daughter be unnecessary and redundant, since they, by law, already possess these rights?

And what if we remove all civil rights associated with "marriage" and grant them instead in association with "civil unions?" Off he cuff, I'd feel better about that, than about destroying the meaning of a term that defines an ideal.

[Nathan Poe]

And what if we remove all civil rights associated with "marriage" and grant them instead in association with "civil unions?" Off he cuff, I'd feel better about that, than about destroying the meaning of a term that defines an ideal.

Just so I'm clear on this: you'd rather dismantle marriage than share the term with the gays? Holy Scorched Earth Policy, Batman!

But seriously, the idea has some merit. Tell me what you think.

1. Abolish marriage entirely as a civil service -- "marriage" becomes a religious ceremony only with absolutely no secular value in society -- similar to baptism or circumcision.
2. Grant federal recognition to Civil Unions, and grant them the same status that "marriage" currently has (All current marriages would be "grandfathered" into the new system).
3. Federally recognize gay civil unions.
4. Because of 2. and 3., the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will apply to Civil Unions just as it did with "marriage." This would effectively repeal DOMA.

And thus everyone gets what they want. Sound acceptable?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Just so I'm clear on this: you'd rather dismantle marriage than share the term with the gays? Holy Scorched Earth Policy, Batman!

But seriously, the idea has some merit. Tell me what you think.

1. Abolish marriage entirely as a civil service -- "marriage" becomes a religious ceremony only with absolutely no secular value in society -- similar to baptism or circumcision.
2. Grant federal recognition to Civil Unions, and grant them the same status that "marriage" currently has (All current marriages would be "grandfathered" into the new system).
3. Federally recognize gay civil unions.
4. Because of 2. and 3., the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will apply to Civil Unions just as it did with "marriage." This would effectively repeal DOMA.

And thus everyone gets what they want. Sound acceptable?

Remembering to add in anti-discrimination policies when it comes to adoption and other side-issues, of course.

[Nathan Poe]

Remembering to add in anti-discrimination policies when it comes to adoption and other side-issues, of course.

Fair enough -- somewhere around step 3 we'll specify that the government makes no distinction whatsoever between civil unions of same sex or opposite sex parents.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Fair enough -- somewhere around step 3 we'll specify that the government makes no distinction whatsoever between civil unions of same sex or opposite sex parents.

My worry would be more along the lines of private agencies receiving government funding. If a private agency wants to restrict their adoption policy based on something like race or sexual orientation, they shouldn't be able to do so while using federal funds.

It appears this is a breaking point between groups that, for different reasons, desire the government to "get out of the marriage business."

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

My worry would be more along the lines of private agencies receiving government funding. If a private agency wants to restrict their adoption policy based on something like race or sexual orientation, they shouldn't be able to do so while using federal funds.

It appears this is a breaking point between groups that, for different reasons, desire the government to "get out of the marriage business."

—Sam

But a private agency should continue to receive federal funding even if they are slaughtering thousands of unborn children?

[Darth Executor]

Just so I'm clear on this: you'd rather dismantle marriage than share the term with the gays?

Removing the government from it does not "dismantle marriage".

[OtherCheek]

Removing the government from it does not "dismantle marriage".

Right.
I would strongly prefer to preserve this term so that it can be held up as an "ideal" for at least some in generations to come.

[OtherCheek]

Remembering to add in anti-discrimination policies when it comes to adoption and other side-issues, of course.

And if, after 50 years, longitudinal studies show that same-sex parenting has been harmful to the normal development of children who have now grown up, would you then support stripping same-sex couples of that right?

[JimL]

Sorry if some folks are burned out on this topic, but I wanted to ask this.

Pretend that there must be a legal definition for the term, and you are a Supreme Court Judge writing an opinion, or a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court regarding a "legal" definition for Marriage, which would become the law of the land for the whole nation. I'm especially interested in what SSM advocates would present as the definition of Marriage. But either side of the debate is welcome to add their input.

MARRIAGE IS...

Whatever we decide it is, it is not, and never has been, a definition that is set in stone, not even under Mormonism. People are not mindless matter, they evolve and change their views over time, and it is they that have power over words, not words over them.

[OtherCheek]

Whatever we decide it is, it is not, and never has been, a definition that is set in stone, not even under Mormonism. People are not mindless matter, they evolve and change their views over time, and it is they that have power over words, not words over them.

And this explains the battle over the direction of our future culture and traditions.

[JimL]

And this explains the battle over the direction of our future culture and traditions.

Absolutely, we evolve mentally as well as physically, and I think that both liberal and conservative minds play a part in that mental evolution.

[Ansgar Seraph]

And if, after 50 years, longitudinal studies show that same-sex parenting has been harmful to the normal development of children who have now grown up, would you then support stripping same-sex couples of that right?

Being someone who allows the data to influence his opinion, if studies were to show that, by virtue of their parents' same gender, children of same-sex relationships were significantly negatively impacted during childhood, I would support restricting the adoption rights of same-sex parents. Given that the consensus of studies done already is decidedly opposite that hypothetical, however, I'm none too worried about it being a problem down the road.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

Being someone who allows the data to influence his opinion, if studies were to show that, by virtue of their parents' same gender, children of same-sex relationships were significantly negatively impacted during childhood, I would support restricting the adoption rights of same-sex parents. Given that the consensus of studies done already is decidedly opposite that hypothetical, however, I'm none too worried about it being a problem down the road.

—Sam

You accept flawed studies, only because they conform to your preconceptions.