Time to offer an "alternative" Marriage Amendment.

[Smarmie Doofus]

This issue works for them politically over and over again. Time for some 'outside of the box" thinking .

Progressives can offer an amendment of their own. It should define marriage as a union of any two *adults* irrespective of gender. Additionally it will provide a separate category ... I'll call it 'heterosexual marriage'. People can opt into this tier if they desire to affirm their identity as heterosexual, for whatever reasons ( political, religious, psychological, etc.) they may have.

The two categories: 1. marriage for all (aka "marriage") and 2. 'heterosexual marriage', will be coequal. Each will incur the full responsibilities and privileges afforded by traditional "marriage" The difference will be purely symbolic, for those that wish to employ that symbolism. The amendment will stipulate the absolute *equality* of the categories in terms of concrete benefits and obligations.

Time to stop sitting around and letting RW take the initiative on this issue. "Moderate" DEMS and fence sitters can easily survive the political fallout they seem to fear from supporting 'gay marriage'. They can now be seen a supporting "choice" in marriage.

The option to select and affirm 'heterosexual' marriage will deflate much of the demagogic mileage that the RW has been able to milk from this issue.

[drm604]

1. It's an interesting idea.

However, the way these people think, I don't think they'll go for it. They'll simply see it as legalizing gay marriage and the right-wing spin machine will encourage that perception.

Remember there are people who are even against civil unions.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Your right... and they're right: it *will* legalize gay marriage.

But I'm not trying to dissuade the hard-core antis. I'm trying to water down some of their support.

A two-tiered system would provide political cover for those finger-in-the-wind DEMS ( we know who they are; maybe a few Republicans, too) who can justifiably say that they are not supporting gay marriage in so much as providing "choice". The alleged 'traditional' marriage of man/woman will still be recognized and that option available to anyone FOR WHOM THAT IS IMPORTANT.

Main purpose , though, is to seize the initiative. Have the senate debate OUR Marriage amendment before it debates theirs.

[Ian David]

2. Here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...

Okay, here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...
Topic started by IanDB1 on Sep-15-05 12:26 PM (19 replies)
Last modified by dickthegrouch on Sep-16-05 04:15 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=16300

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. It's great! Will it sell outside of Mass., though?

Can you get to work on a *Federal* version? Perhaps we can collaborate.

Has anyone in Mass showed any interest in it... legislatively speaking?

[MessiahRp]

4. Pretty smart idea

Takes away that whole defending marriage argument because in effect it protects heterosexual marriages and defines them...

The image that pops in my head with all of this is the image of Dr. Suess' Sneetches...

Uh oh, the gays figured out how to get Stars upon thars... so we'll get our stars removed...

If you get what I am thinking.

Rp

[win_in_06]

5. Putting alternative marriage issues on the ballot would be playing right

into Rove's hands.

They would like nothing more than to see the 06 election become a defacto referendum on Gay Marriage vs a referendum on the War.

We saw how that turned out in previous elections. The right wingnuts turned out in droves.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. True.... all of this. But this appears to be inevitable,

given the status quo.

Time to change the status quo. Introducing our own (new and improved) amendment re. marriage changes the dynamics of the situation.

Among other things, they'll have to explain why having the right to partake of the "man/woman only" *option* will not suffice. They will have to insist, and be SEEN as insisting ( in a way that might not look too magnanimous for them) that there way is the ONLY way.

Many people will, I suspect, will be uncomfortable with this.

[zbdent]

6. It should be pointed out that the Repubs are wanting an amendment

to a document that they totally ignore ...