|
Post by cakemakermom on Sept 24, 2012 8:54:10 GMT -6
It wouldn't allow me to post a long question, so here's the whole question: If we were to change the thing we're voting on from "defining marriage between one man and one woman" to "allowing all adults to form a civil union with the partner of their choice", would you change your vote?
Remember that anyone that can claim "married" on their taxes is actually in a civil union, whether we got married in a church or in front of a justice of the peace. As long as we filled out the form and got it filed, you are in a civil union.
It took me a mile and a half walk to figure this out in my head after talking to one of the moms at the bus stop who is voting yes on the amendment because of the word "marriage", but would like equal rights for all couples.
Obviously they'd have to change the wording on the tax forms also to allow proper taxation, but one step at a time.
|
|
|
Post by onlyoneboy on Sept 24, 2012 9:10:54 GMT -6
I don't think changing it from married to civil union should make any difference. It doesn't matter what sex you are or who you love. You should be able to have the same benefits as as a man and a woman joined in marriage. Let each church decided who they want to marry and keep the state out of it. I was married by a JP 17 years ago. We are MARRIED. I don't care what people say just because I was married by a JP DH and I are married.
|
|
|
Post by cakemakermom on Sept 24, 2012 9:32:39 GMT -6
I'm just trying to see all sides of the issue. No one will vote for this yet?
|
|
|
Post by dara1012 on Sept 24, 2012 9:39:07 GMT -6
I guess I am confused by the poll questions.
I am voting "No". I do not want to limit the definition of marriage in our state constitution. I wish the vote was to actually allow homosexuals to marry their partner. I don't have any problems with calling unions between any loving couple a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by onlyoneboy on Sept 24, 2012 9:41:55 GMT -6
I agree with you Dara! It doesn't matter which way you want to word it. I will always vote so anyone can marry whomever they wish.
|
|
|
Post by cakemakermom on Sept 24, 2012 9:55:41 GMT -6
The first yes or no is for the "marriage amendment" and how you're voting for the current legislation going through, the second yes or no is for if you would vote for a "civil union" for everyone.
So if you're going to vote no for the amendment as it stands, but would vote yes if everyone could get the same rights, then you'd be changing your vote for the new wording. Sorry, I guess I made it look like you'd be changing to deny rights if you're voting no to allow rights.
I know some people are getting hung up on the word "marriage".
|
|
|
Post by ReneeW on Sept 24, 2012 9:59:22 GMT -6
I'm against the amendment for a number of reasons. But I think a strong argument for anyone, no matter their feeling about the issue, is that the constitution is there to PROTECT people's rights, not take them away. And this amendment is denying rights for a minority of our population--that goes ENTIRELY against what the constitution is meant to do.
|
|
|
Post by dara1012 on Sept 24, 2012 10:52:40 GMT -6
Agreed Renee! That is the number one I argument I make when talking to people who do not believe in gay marriage, but I am trying to encourage to Vote NO anyway b/c it is limiting rights in a document meant to protect rights.
|
|
|
Post by lilmermaid on Sept 24, 2012 11:27:16 GMT -6
I think people who are in favor because it says Marriage is that Marriage is something they believe is ordained by God therefore it should be between a man and a woman.
I am voting no so it doesn't matter to me how it is stated.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 24, 2012 18:16:28 GMT -6
Oh, that's complicated. I'm not in favor of pretending some marriages are "civil unions" and don't believe in inventing a new term to placate homophobes.
I want fair marriage laws, but the amendment doesn't get us that whether it passes or not, and nor would what you are describing.
If we were talking about an amendment that would create some separate-but-not-equal license for some marriages I would really have to study the ramifications of voting yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by cakemakermom on Sept 25, 2012 7:14:17 GMT -6
I agree with you on how all unions should be described as equal. It was just one mom's opinion that I was discussing. If I can't call yours a marriage, Sharon, then mine should only be a civil union also.
Honestly, we all are bound by civil unions if we can claim taxes because that is the government, we are married because we've committed to each other spiritually (regardless of God or not) and emotionally. Neither needs the other, we can be committed to each other without the form claiming so, many people never get married, therefore forfeiting the legal rights to a union, but creating a legal union doesn't need the necessary love and devotion either, many celebrities and other people get hooked up legally for other reasons, publicity, to become a citizen, to look good in the community, etc.
We could easily just claim civil union on the tax form and let the churches perform "marriages". It's so interchangeable as a set of words that the difference seems to have gotten forgotten. It would have to get just as complicate for opposite gendered people to get "married" then too. I know people who have never entered a church so theirs should not be called a marriage by the same definition as they got married by a justice of the peace.
I'm not trying to make other people feel less than, it was a discussion about how one mom came across to me as not being able to turn it around in her mind about letting the same gender form what in her mind was not actually a "marriage" because of her biblical background.
Plus I think anyone that shows that level of commitment to another person should be considered married.
|
|
|
Post by slufoot on Sept 25, 2012 8:31:53 GMT -6
My DH and I got married in Mexico, where a judge "marries" you. I guess it would be a civil union technically. People can have a religious ceremony, but the government does not recognize it. I thought that was a great way to separate religion and the government.
|
|
|
Post by elizac on Sept 25, 2012 13:05:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2012 13:52:24 GMT -6
All marriage licenses are civil unions. It is the government (civil) joining (union) of two people into one entity for the purposes of government rights and responsibilities. It's like calling your child a "youthful relative" or your home an "inhabited domicile." The terms are true, it's just not usually the language people use.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2012 13:56:19 GMT -6
Eliza the issue isn't what religions choose to believe or who they choose to marry. The issue is should the Constitution make a central part of our state having unfair laws toward some married couples.
|
|
Back to the Top