A lot of interesting things have been said on this issue, and I can see how it has the capacity to branch off in several different (related) directions.
That being the case, I would like to summarize and hopefully clarify my main arguments: 1. Government has no place making laws/ordinances/regulations, etc based upon a particular definition of "family." I predict that even if the wording is changed in an effort to be inclusive, it will probably leave someone out or bug someone. Better to not go there at all. 2. This argument is about individual liberty, and individual privacy. Just because my example used "two lesbian couples" does not mean that I am only concerned with that scenario. The city does not need to know (at least for purposes related to my property) that I am married, and that my partner is a man. It doesn't matter. See #1. 3. What is NOT SAID is IMPORTANT. Keith R. and Emily Q. stated or otherwise inferred that housing which allows "unrelated" people to live together is problematic. The implicit corrollary is that "real families" are good. They don't make noise; they don't have high turnover rates; they don't park a zillion cars in the n'hood. As Wizard M. quickly pointed out, this is not the case. In sum: The city of Minneapolis should not, by virtue of its codes and rules, explicitly or implicitly endorse some standard for "family." Connie Nompelis Ventura Village __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
