Reply #9: Seriously, do you think it wouldn't be a big deal? [View All]

[no name no slogan]

to redo federal law to reflect "civil unions" and marriages as the same thing? Do you KNOW how huge the tax code is, for example, and how much rewriting it would take?

And don't think that it wouldn't take a rewrite, either, because some wingnut will use the fact that "civil union" isn't in the written law and find a loophole to exploit it.

And do you honestly think that this new language won't go through several court challenges, either?

Why should GLBT folk have to get "civil unions" when us straight folk can get civil MARRIAGES. It's just mincing words on part of the spineless who fear that the right wing will dictate the terms of the debate. "Civil unions" is a complete cop-out. Plus, add to the fact that to most candidates it would somehow be alright if we did it on a state level (instead of at the federal level) just makes the whole "civil unions" claim bogus and indefensible if you agree that GLBT folk should get equal treatment under the law.

Dean supports "civil unions" for GLBT folk. He's even said that he doesn't like the idea of "gay marriage". "civil unions" == second-class citizenship. That's like giving African-American slaves "move away from master" rights as opposed to complete emancipation.

To give gays "civil unions" and not legal marriages shows a complete lack of spine and courage of conviction. It's not "pragmatic", nor "moderate", it's second-class citizenship. It's either right or wrong for EVERYONE to be treated EQUALLY. It's the whole BASIS for the founding of this country.