Mike the Usurper wrote:

] Not anymore.
]
] So, what happens now is anyone's guess. The only two options
] are strike the rule, or abolish government recognized
] marriage. Marriage is a mostly religious institution anyway,
] so maybe what the step is, government can only recognize civil
] unions, and leave marriage to the church. (The IRS would go
] nuts trying to fit that on a 1040, but no one likes the IRS
] anyway) I don't think that solution makes anyone very happy
] because it means changes for all kinds of people. Insurance
] companies would be forced to retool all their rules because
] just like the government, companies can't discriminate on
] religious grounds (which marriage would now be) and states
] would not be able to do both marriages and civil unions
] because that falls into the category of "separate but equal"
] which was struck down under Brown v Board of Education.
]
] I would deeply like to thank the current administration for
] this pile of crap. They've chosen to make screwing over hate
] and discrimination a centerpiece of American daily life and
] are doing their best to make it the law.

I think the problem lies with the word "marriage" which has religous significance. Rather aboloshing, ammending the word so its definition in law has nothing to do with a sacrament, or changing it to something else which means a legal pairing. That way people can do whatever they want in front of their god, but the government should look at all of it as silly. It should be something else in law. If this is done, however, it will be a major restructuring of our society and after a fashion, laws regarding gender roles and lifestyle issues will probably start to work properly. But that will take a while. I think that most of the reluctance has more to do with the mess it will create for a significant amount of time until all the other equal-sorta we have work themselves out.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
] I would deeply like to thank the current administration for
] this pile of crap. They've chosen to make screwing over hate
] and discrimination a centerpiece of American daily life and
] are doing their best to make it the law.

I think the problem lies with the word "marriage" which has religous significance. Rather aboloshing, ammending the word so its definition in law has nothing to do with a sacrament, or changing it to something else which means a legal pairing.

[ To be fair, this isn't 100% the fault of this administration... the issue was coming to the fore regardless, and in fact, politically speaking, it's done more harm than good for them. Solidifying the fundie base isn't something W had to be too concerned with, and i think he lost some of the leaners in the middle. I'm not saying it's not shameful, and I won't let them off the hook for the Hate Amendment, but there's a lot of people who agree with them, so it was bound to happen.

Personally, I'd like to see everyone grow the fuck up and let the issue die... let people marry each other... whatever. I've been back and forth on this a few times, and something still sits ill whenever i consider adjusting legal definitions. The ideal outcome for me is for the supreme court to say "Shut up. That's unconstitutional. Now, get out of here."

Still, in reality, I have a feeling we'll end up with something like terratogen states above - the government altering itself to refer to and recognize *only* civil unions, a contractual status, and leave the term "marriage" open to whatever silly debates people wish to have about it's proper application. It's become too charged a term, and while i can't and don't want to tell anyone to cede it's definition to a group of fundamentalists, the government is probably better off if they remove themselves from what is essentially a religious argument and stick to the precise issues of equality, which is their purview. -k]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
] So, what happens now is anyone's guess. The only two options
] are strike the rule, or abolish government recognized
] marriage. Marriage is a mostly religious institution anyway,
] so maybe what the step is, government can only recognize civil
] unions, and leave marriage to the church. (The IRS would go
] nuts trying to fit that on a 1040, but no one likes the IRS
] anyway) I don't think that solution makes anyone very happy
] because it means changes for all kinds of people. Insurance
] companies would be forced to retool all their rules because
] just like the government, companies can't discriminate on
] religious grounds (which marriage would now be) and states
] would not be able to do both marriages and civil unions
] because that falls into the category of "separate but equal"
] which was struck down under Brown v Board of Education.

Mike: Nicely written and well-researched, thanks!

Sometimes the majority is wrong but that doesn't make something right. Segregation, for instance.

I think the constitution is very clear. If you leave religion out of this, and embrace REASON, its very clear. Let people marry each other if they want to. It would make people happy, help the economy, and provide more security for people. I wonder how some of the opponents to gay marriage would feel if THEY were denied visitation to their dying mates?

I don't care what WORD is used, marriage, civil unions, whatever - but in order to protect folks that happen to be gay, something needs to be done. They suffer injustice every day because their primary relationships are in no way acknowledged by the government...cutting off their access to government and legal protections.

Its NOT right.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
] So, what happens now is anyone's guess. The only two options
] are strike the rule, or abolish government recognized
] marriage. Marriage is a mostly religious institution anyway,
] so maybe what the step is, government can only recognize civil
] unions, and leave marriage to the church. (The IRS would go
] nuts trying to fit that on a 1040, but no one likes the IRS
] anyway) I don't think that solution makes anyone very happy
] because it means changes for all kinds of people. Insurance
] companies would be forced to retool all their rules because
] just like the government, companies can't discriminate on
] religious grounds (which marriage would now be) and states
] would not be able to do both marriages and civil unions
] because that falls into the category of "separate but equal"
] which was struck down under Brown v Board of Education.

Mike: Nicely written and well-researched, thanks!