Would someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?

I find the biggest problem between those for or against it is calling it marriage. Give them the same benefits because civil union lack federal benefits and portability, while calling it something different. Marriage has been a religious ceremony for thousands of years and most religious do not accept gay marriage. Logically compromise should take place, but is this mockery of democracy people do not concede but bully their views upon others.Would someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
How about EVERYONE who had a civil ceremony are ';civil unioned'; %26amp; those who had the ceremony in a church/clergy member ';married';? Marriage is left to Church %26amp; regulated by the doctrine of the Church you get married in. The state can go about the business of ensuring rights %26amp; benefits for those couples who want to ensure that they are legally taken care of should something happen to either part of the couple.





The only stipulations are our government would have to get out of the marriage business, since that is strictly a church issue. Those who marry in a church would have to get civil unioned in order to receive benefits from the state/federal government. And DOMA would have to be rescinded, since marriage is strictly a church issue.





But that wont happen. Just like same sex couples now right now, straight people will not want to be ';civil unioned'; because it's not married. Then someone is going to complain that their rights are being violated since their marriages don't ';count'; anymore because they have to do more paperwork to receive the benefits from the gpvernment.





As for folks compromising? I don''t think it'll happen. IF civil unions were given the EXACT same benefits as the current term marriage has across the board for ANYONE in a state-recognized/state sanctioned union, AND the federal government would recognized any state sanctioned/recognized union, I would be for it.





Yes, you read that correctly. I would be for civil unions for same sex couples IF %26amp; ONLY IF they provided THE EXACT SAME rights %26amp; benefits for me %26amp; my family as marriage does for straight couples. The problem is, you can only get these benefits through marriage as defined by DOMA.





However, those against SSM aren't playing fair. Not only do some of these folks not want SSMs, but they don't want civil unions/domestic partnerships to have the same benefits as marriage or SOME benefits of marriage to provide for SSM families because it would basically be marriage by a different name.





They claim that civil unions/domestic partnerships provide the SAME benefits of marriage. They also claim that we can draw up legal contracts (POA, wills, etc) so our spouses will get the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. The ';they'; previously mentioned are religious groups %26amp; pro family/pro marriage groups like Focus on the Family, ADF, NOM, Concerned Women of America, %26amp; other conservative groups.





This doesn't happen. Otherwise, I could write in my will for my wife to be buried in a Veterans Cemetery with me %26amp; receive every benefit a spouse would be entitled to through my government.





The federal benefits of marriage cannot be transfered to anyone other than an opposite sex spouse. No will, power of attorney, or other legal document can ensure that our families receive our veterans benefits, Social Security, don't have to deal with inheritance taxes, %26amp; the other 1130+ benefits afforded ONLY to married couples. Plus, the state or federal government do not have to honor any legal paperwork drawn up when it comes to state or federal issues.





Marriage is a state issue in this country. It started off as a state issue BEFORE religion decided it would make it a sacrament.





The couple can choose a church CEREMONY or civil CEREMONY once they meet the state's regulations for marriage. The Church has every right to deny anyone they deem as not meeting their criteria/doctrine for marriage in their church or by a religious officiant from that church. But that couple, even though denied by the Church, can still be married civilly.





If that couple gets the ceremony done at their church without doing the state's paperwork? They face the same dilemma same sex couples face NOW:


~they are treated as strangers for 1130+ federal benefits of marriage, AND


~they may get some, but not all or the same benefits of marriage as another couple who complied with the state's regulations of marriage.





It's sad to see that after all the trials %26amp; tribulations this country has been through with discrimination %26amp; unequal treatment of its citizens because of religion, race/color, nationality, gender, disability or veteran status, we haven't learned our lesson. Once again, we are discriminating against another group of taxpaying, law abiding citizens who are contributing members to our society.





Civil rights were taken away or unequal treatment of others was seen as ok by the majority. When these groups fought for their rights, they were met with strong opposition %26amp; their fight had to be handled by our GOVERNMENT in order for equality to prevail. If these groups waited on the support of the majority, they would still be discriminated against to this day. People don't like change %26amp; want to keep the status quo. As long as the rights of these groups of people didn't affect the majority, the majority didn't care.





Until the government gets out of this semantics mess of the word ';marriage'; %26amp; issuing marriage licenses for a civiWould someone who is against gay marriage be against giving them the same rights but called something else?
I think you're almost at the right answer. Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony and as such shouldn't be included in civil government at all. But government does recognize the value of the arrangement and rewards it. Therefore, straight couples should get both their marriage certificate from their church AND a civil union contract. This would ';divorce'; government from religion while still rewarding a healthy relationship. And that civil contract should also be available to LGBT's.





But let there be no mistake: There is no such thing as separate but equal. By leaving a distinction, then the door is open to further discrimination.
Yes, but then we have to ask why we're giving them special benefits. There are many other groups that are in need of financial support far more than gays. Why single that group out for special ';civil union'; privileges? Why not allow health care benefits be shared between two adult sisters for example. Do are going to require that they have sex? Ridiculous.





If we want more equal sharing of benefits, then we ought to open it to everyone.
idk. i hope gays get rights.blacks got rights. were all human and we all diserve to be treated good. this is america ';land of the free'; but truely no one is free. were all still caged up in our own goverment. getting control by someone who doesnt know a damn thing.
I do agree why would gay marriage be part of marriage a religion thing but I don't like marriage peroiod it is sad to say you need to be part of the goverments system and it is bs that's what I think.
I'm not sure. It might. People against gay marriage have this strange idea that it will somehow ';devalue'; their own marriages. Whatever the hell that means.
Doubtful, the uber religious believe that all gay relationships are wrong and don't want any legal recognition allowed.