RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage

[Ian Skinner]

Actually, I think what has been pointed out is that the marriage laws in many states don't specify the genders of the individuals in the marriage.  Presumable, because the original authors just assumed that they would always be applied one man and one woman.  So most of the hoopla here is that the gays are using a loophole (no gender specified) to get around the "intent" of these laws and thus these new measures are need to protect the "tradition" of marriage.


And if that was all it was I would probably not make a big deal of it.  But there is much more legal standing to being "married" then just a license that says so.  And that is where I see a legitimate claim.  Why shouldn't two women living together in a committed relationship not have the same taxes, insurance rights, ect.; as a man and a women who are living together in a committed relationship.
--------------
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\iskinner\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.BloodSource.org> www.BloodSource.org <http://www.BloodSource.orgSacramento>
Sacramento, CA

"C code. C code run. Run code run. Please!"
- Cynthia Dunning
If currently the law supports Marriage between a man and a woman,
Then Gays are imposing their will if laws are changed to allow marriage between
two men or two women.

Confidentiality Notice:  This message including any
attachments is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and
delete any copies of this message.

---

[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

---