My "separate-but-equal" comment was in response to marriages for the straight and civil unions for gays. I can agree that all legal joinings become civil unions, and marriage is a term reserved for a religious cerimony or relationship.
--Ben G wrote: >>I'm just going to go with my old standby, the separate-but-equal argument. >> >> >>>I think the answer to this is pretty simple: remove the term "marriage" >>>completely from the LEGAL aspect of it. Grant all couples a legal civil >>>union. Leave the term "marriage" to the religious folks who can, and >>>will, >>>deny that rite (sacrament) from whomever they choose. >> >>This, I could agree to. >> >>--Ben >> > > > Yeah, what i'm proposing isn't "separate but equal", its the same for > everyone. Everyone who wants a civil union, has the right to have one. Man > and woman, man and man, woman and woman, doesn't matter. In the eyes of the > state, they are granted a civil union which gives them all of the legal > rights that were previously applied to "married" couples. > > The term marriage retreats out of the public discourse and becomes what it > initially was anyway: a religious rite. > > Any law that attempts to restrict same sex civil unions is indefensible. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:180554 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
