Quote: Morganni wrote:Absolutely right about the equality aspect. Thank you for clarifying that.
I believe I once heard someone on the radio propose a similar arrangement, and part of the point was that it *would* change everywhere. The government
doesn't give out marriages or decide who gets to marry, and nothing the government does is based on marriage. The government only deals in civil unions.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it has any fundamental advantage over, you know, letting same-sex couples get marriage licenses. '.'
Also, what do you make of this?
-Morgan.
As for the fundamental advantage over same-sex marriage, the whole point is that it wouldn't get the religious right all up in arms about the
"perversion of marriage". It would appeal to both sides, and have a greater chance of being made law.
As for that, what Obama did helps. A little. I think, though, that the only proper solution is a law that simply makes it so that there is no legal
difference between a same-sex couple and a hetero couple. It's a simple way to create absolute legal equality.
The homosexual community is in for a long, bumpy ride, though, if it wants to get social equality with heterosexuality. I wish it weren't so, but there
are a lot of obstacles in their path, and they can't all be thrown aside at once, like the legal obstacles can.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.