proposed solution to marriage controversy

[bellastar]

:idea:Like many of you, I am 100% in support of marriage for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Thre is a large majority of citizens in this country for whom the idea of same-sex marriage is unacceptable, for a variety of reasons. After listening carefully to their arguments, I have come up with a possible compromise in which all parties may feel respected.

A dual path to legal partnership would be instituted on a national level. One path would be traditional marriage, available only to one man and one woman, unrelated, of legal age (basically, marriage as we now know it.) It would carry with it all of the rights and responsibilities it does today. The second path would be a nationally-recognized, secular union between two unrelated adults of legal age. This option would be available to those of any gender. It would carry with it all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage does, though under no circumstances would it be referred to as "marriage".

My idea for this proposal came from the realization that much of the resistance to gay unions comes from a desire to protect marriage. With my proposal, marriage would remain unharmed and protected from changes. There would simply be another path to the rights enjoyed by married couples. Additionally, I predict that were this proposal instituted, many male/female couples would also choose the second path, either due to a non-religious lifestyle or in solidarity with same-sex couples.
I welcome your feedback. What do you think?

[PeriodThree]

I am sorry, but I consider your idea to be deeply destructive.

There is no such thing as 'separate but equal.'

Fortunately the number of people who want gay people treated as second class citizens is shrinking. Some of them are becoming enlightened, and others are simply dying off.

The fact that 'not everyone agrees' that the constitutional mandate for equal protection under the law means what it says does not mean we should reject our principles.

Most Americans don't believe in evolution either, but we shouldn't cater to ignorance and fear.


:idea:Like many of you, I am 100% in support of marriage for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Thre is a large majority of citizens in this country for whom the idea of same-sex marriage is unacceptable, for a variety of reasons. After listening carefully to their arguments, I have come up with a possible compromise in which all parties may feel respected.

A dual path to legal partnership would be instituted on a national level. One path would be traditional marriage, available only to one man and one woman, unrelated, of legal age (basically, marriage as we now know it.) It would carry with it all of the rights and responsibilities it does today. The second path would be a nationally-recognized, secular union between two unrelated adults of legal age. This option would be available to those of any gender. It would carry with it all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage does, though under no circumstances would it be referred to as "marriage".

My idea for this proposal came from the realization that much of the resistance to gay unions comes from a desire to protect marriage. With my proposal, marriage would remain unharmed and protected from changes. There would simply be another path to the rights enjoyed by married couples. Additionally, I predict that were this proposal instituted, many male/female couples would also choose the second path, either due to a non-religious lifestyle or in solidarity with same-sex couples.
I welcome your feedback. What do you think?