What's wrong with the compromise solution on same-sex marriage?

Would anyone who opposes legally-recognized same-sex ';marriage'; be opposed to eliminating the word altogether from the secular legal code we all live under as citizens, and instead give everyone a ';civil union';, so that everyone has the same legally defined rights under the same term without the possibility of the problems that arise from the ';separate-but-equal'; situation? That way, religious institutions could define a marriage however they see fit, and recognize certain unions as such, while the secular law that all citizens must live under preserves the fundamental right to equality. Would this solution work?What's wrong with the compromise solution on same-sex marriage?
We should be more concerned about the eternal future of those who practice such things than what we call their unions. I would simply say that we need to spread the gospel to all; and not only this debase group. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.





The gospel is that Jesus has paid the wages of sin for us in His death on the cross. He has done all that needs to be done to make peace between us and the Father. Accept this, and you will not need an answer to such a mundane question. You will have the peace that surpasses all understanding and seek to have others be as you are.





I sincerely hope that you will take the time to read His book and get to know Him better. Toward the end of the book you will learn that there will be no dogs in heaven. Answer the question, ';Who are the dogs?'; and you will be on the way to understanding.





May the Lord fill you with His love for all. He did die for everyone who has sinned and then trusts in Him for eternal life. Trust in the Lord!What's wrong with the compromise solution on same-sex marriage?
What you describe is not a compromise, it is the elimination of the sanctity of marriage, of marriage itself. If gays and lesbians want to be together with all the same benefits as married couples they can achieve this through a civil union. A marriage is not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, this is a union. A civil union would be a compromise without the loss of the sanctity of marriage but they will have none of it because it is not equal rights they seek. Theirs is to undermine and destroy this tradition. They would gleefully go along with your idea because it destroys the traditional marriage, but there are some traditions too valuable to compromise. Think what it would be like if all our values were compromised. Not a pretty picture, yet this is their goal not equal benefits.
The constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. It does not define it as between man and woman because it does not define marriage. State constitutions usually define marriage. Under the tenth amendment states have the right to set their laws as they see fit as long as it's not against the U.S. Constitution.





Amendment X





The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.








Because there is no actual constitutional law regarding marriage it is up to the states what they consider legal.
I personally don't see that as a bad idea.





It's when people insist that the word ';marriage'; should be reserved for straight couples while allowing gay people to have ';civil unions'; that bothers me.





As Brown vs. Board of Education demonstrated, ';separate but equal'; is NOT equal.
Yes, I would still oppose a ';civil union';, i don't give a **** about the word, it's the concept that bothers me. Remind me, what ';fundamental right'; are you referring to? Under the United States Constitution, marriage is between a single man and a single woman.
I think it's a great idea!





That way, gay ';unions'; or gay ';marriage'; will never be a reality!





*No one is going to change their marriage to a ';union'; to accommodate gays.
Gays are already free to live however they want.





Why do we need a compromise?