On 26/10/2006, at 11:59 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
...
From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't
really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay
couples
similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not
a fan of calling it "marriage," but that's my cross to bear, not
others'.
Jim--
I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a
civil union, and that should maybe be the
official name. But I confess that I'd personally
call such things "marriages", just to upset
traditionalists.
Or call the legal arrangement a "civil partnership" or suchlike *for
every couple*, and the "marriage" the associated ceremony which would
have no legal standing in and of itself. That way we can all get the
legal protections we need to protect families and partners, and
people who wish a "traditional wedding" (whatever that is) can
arrange it with their place of worship or wherever they wish it,
assuming that they subscribe to a belief system that doesn't
discriminate against those who happen to be in a loving relationship
with someone of the same gender.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
