Hear Hear! "Marriage" as a word gets to be defined by religious organizations, and the legally binding contract retains a different name and much more flexibility.
-- Matt ----- Original Message ---- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:59:41 AM Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ IMHO I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the marriage business PERIOD. As far as the government is concerned, they are ALL civil unions, straight or gay. This way you can call it whatever the heck you want... Damon. ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -----Original Message----- From: David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:59:55 To:Killer Bs Discussion <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ 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. ---David A rose by any other name, Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
