If it's simply a legal state, then what's wrong with allowing any
couple, regardless of gender, to reap the economic and social rewards
thereof?
Heck, I'll go beyond gays and lesbians. My spinster aunts, who were
economically and emotionally interdependent (but by no means some creepy
lesbian couple) would bave benefitted greatly. Specifically, the
surviving sister would have been able to collect residual social
security benifits after the death of the elder.
--BenD
Monique Boea wrote:
> Agreed!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> This is a ridiculous statement. "Marriage" is a nothing more than a legal
> state. To be legally married, you dont have to prove love, love is not a
> prerequisite, in fact, love has NOTHING to do with it. Marriage is simply a
> legal union of a man and a women. That is how it is defined, legally. Two
> people can most definitely be in love, and not married, just as people who
> are married can most definitely NOT be in love.
>
> To suggest that redefining marriage is some sort of trivial act, is nuts.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
