I don't think he's suggesting that at all. He seems to be in favor of something that i've been calling for all along: civil unions or "legal marriages" for EVERYONE, "the sacrament of marriage" for those who want a religious ceremony or rite.
I mean, what's the big fuckin' deal? Religious people get mad when you call it 'marriage', liberals get mad if you call it a 'civil union', but most sane people on both sides want the same thing: legal rights for partners, separate from the religious implications. I propose we name it "ablergonomistopolog", and make it available to everyone. Problem solved. On 9/25/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So forget the analogy. You're advocating that we legalize > discrimination by legally preventing one group from exercising a > practice that another group has full access to. So my question is, > why should the US legalize discrimination of tax paying citizens in > good standing? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:215987 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
