A gay marriage compromise: what are your thoughts on this?

Conservatives don't want gay marriage.

Progressive people want marriage equality.

People assume that those are incompatible, but they're not, we can meet both those requirements. Just get rid of marraige altogether and there will be marriage equality without introducing gay marriage.

People could still have wedding ceremonies and say they're married, call each other husband/wife etc. The governement just would give no legal recognition for marriage, but only civil unions (for everyone).

So we'd have complete equality and no gay marriage. Who thinks this compromise is a great idea?

  • I'm a conservative, I'd be happy with this.
    Vote A
  • I'm a conservative, I'd be unhappy with this, I want marriage equality as well as no gay marriage.
    Vote B
  • I'm progressive, I'd be happy with this.
    Vote C
  • I'm progressive, I'd be unhappy with this, I want marriage to be a legally recognised thing.
    Vote D
  • See answers
    Vote E
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Any opinions on this?

If you're voting D, why? Everyone could have a wedding ceremony, get a piece of paper that says they are married etc. and could also get a government recognised civil union to have the current rights related to marriage. There would be complete equality and the conservatives should be happy.
Any other views on this?


Most Helpful Girl

Most Helpful Guy

  • One of the few legitimate functions of government is to recognize and, where necessary, to enforce contracts. For the government to refuse to recognize and to enforce a provision entitling any particular contract as a 'marriage' would be a breach of that governmental function.

    If people should be allowed to have whatever consensual relationships they want (and I think that they should, and perhaps you agree), then part of that is being able to label the relationship. But, certainly, government should get out of imposing terms and conditions, which is what it does now to marriage. Government should enforce contracts, not write them.

    By the way, I am neither a 'conservative' nor a 'progressive'. My politics can be summarized as follows: "All acts except initiations of force (violence) should be legal, and government should exist whose sole function is to retaliate against initiations of force."

    And, by the way, I think many conservatives and progressives would be unhappy with your proposal, as with mine.

    • It would no longer be a contract, if they want legal recognition they could get a civil union as well/instead.

    • Well, indeed. And that's my point. If the government were to refuse to recognize and to enforce it, it would be failing in one of its only legitimate functions.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!

What Guys Said 5

  • It's not accurate to say "Conservatives don't want gay marriage."

    There are plenty of conservatives who do. Including virtually all the LGBT ones.

    • They might be right wing, but they're not conservatives if they want change.

    • Well no that's not accurate either. :) Yours is a definition of conservatism with which few (famous, elected, longstanding, founding, fundamental, etc.) conservatives would actually identify.

  • How about we keep marriage between a man and a woman while having civil unions between homosexuals. That way everyone is happy. Marriage is not redefined and gays get to live happily together.

    • Gays want equality, that wouldn't give it to them.

    • Show All
    • Why exclude marriage as well then?

      Gays can have kids without being married.

    • I never said exclude marriage I said marriage is a union of a man and a woman and should remain.
      A civil union is a union of 2 individuals.
      I'm against gay adoption and in vitro fertilization

  • I think it wouldn't work because the issue is not really that many conservatives don't what queer couples to have a binding contract called marriage, it's that they don't want queer people to be couples at all, or even exist.

    • So their objection to gay marriage is irrational? (Even considering their beliefs.) Gay people are already together and they can already have/raise children, allowing them to marry won't change that, so do you think the conservative opposition to gay marriage is actually quite confused?

  • A bit late to the party, my friend: gay marriage is officially legal. Conservatives can cry their prejudiced eyes out.

    • At the wrong party mate, the US isn't the world.

  • That's exactly what it was before. But you need to add the specifics of Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to a couple they do not believe is ethical. This is not to spite anyone, I just believe that freedom of religion comes before people's feelings.