Civil Unions are special rights

[LeftCoast]

I don't want special rights.

I want equal rights.

[Kiouni]

1. your argument is short

but absolutely sound.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Sorry, you'll have to wait about 20 years

There's lots of dumb people in this country and unfortunately they vote.

[lcordero2]

7. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb people procreate more than smart people. She'll have to wait forever.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. True, but young dumb people at least don't care about gay marriage

Older dumb people do.

[Hekate]

3. We'd be better off if government got out of the "marriage" business

Personally, I believe "marriage," "holy matrimony," or whatever you want to call it should be left to churches, synagogues, temples, groves, covens, or whatever your spiritual path may be. We have freedom of religion in this country -- if your particular religion restricts your marital desires, then work to change that or find another one more to your liking. From my personal perspective, marriage between any two freely-consenting adults is fine by me -- I applaud hope and love in all their forms. Have a ceremony, speak those vows, have a party with your loved ones. Bless this union.

Government has an interest in good social order, and to that end has created an entire code of marriage and family law designed to facilitate financial support of children and protect everyone's property rights during marriage and in case of divorce. I have no problem with government registry of domestic partners, civil unions, or whatever you want to call it, and think we'd benefit if all unions of two freely-consenting adults were called by the same name and embodied the same responsibilities and protections. Get your license and register at City Hall. Make it separate from the religious ceremony and not contingent on the religious laws of any one group -- other cultures do that.

This is the middle of the night, and I hope I'm saying what I mean clearly enough. I'm very sympathetic towards people who love one another and want to get married. My marriage is in no way "threatened" by the love other people have for each other -- this sorry world needs more love, not less.

Blessings,

Hekate

[Chulanowa]

5. My thoughts exactly

Government has no place in what is, in all reality, a purely religious function. If they want to award partners benefits, then it, unquestionably, undeniably must be given to all partnerships.

[kath]

11. This is how it is done in many European countries.

The CIVIL aspect of a partnership between two people is kept entirely separate from any RELIGIOUS aspect.

A civil ceremony is performed at the courthouse, establishing the contract and the financial/social responsibilities and protections.
A religious ceremony, if one is desired, is performed later at the appropriate house of worship or wherever.

Here, marriage unfortunately is one of those icky entanglements of Church and State. We need separation of the "state" and "religious" aspects of domestic partnerships, just as the more civilized nations have done.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. "KISS!"

"Keep it simple, silly!"

Yours is one of the BEST posts I have seen here in awhile! And, I agree!

:applause:

[cboy4]

6. Do you mind waiting a couple of weeks until the election is over?

:puke:

[mmonk]

8. Then I guess my heterosexual cousin received a special right.

[mmonk]

9. Anyone can get married by the justice of the peace

so therefore, it's not a special right.

[jarab]

12. As long as the state remains, or insists on being, a party

of the one part and the couple the party of the second - a contract - and as long as the same holds true in dissolutions, I would think you're correct.
If it - marriage - were "just" a religious thing, I'd hedge.
As long as the gubment is involved in the contract, it should be equal rights.
There was a time when the intentions to marry were announced in congregations, like three Sundays in a row - and it was official. It was wholly a "church thing".


...O...