I'm sure that this question has been asked before. But, here in Colorado we have a domestic partnerships bill that will give rights to unmarried and same sex couples (like right to make decisions for a sick partner, right to have benefits from wills, etc.). Its being billed as not marriage quite explicitly- that it just is offering some of the benefits of marriage without marriages. So, knowing its not marriage, would you prove for or against it and why?
2006-10-18 08:21:29 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
California has had that law for 20 years now and it hasn't disrupted anything. I am personally for the law. I say let people live with who they are happy with. What someone does in the privacy of their home is not my business.
I'm a little tired of hearing how hateful people are toward one another. This is a really scary country right now. This is probably the only "civilized" country left that doesn't have a domestic partner law nationwide.
2006-10-18 08:30:03 · answer #1 · answered by Rick 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would support such a law. As someone else stated, gays are people too, and deserve all the benefits of married folks who are probably going to be divorced 5 years from now anyway. I also saw on the news that for the first time, unmarried households outnumber married households in the United States.
2006-10-18 08:31:38 · answer #2 · answered by Stranger In The Night 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Support
2006-10-18 08:25:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a libertarian and I support these types of initiatives.I feel sorry for the gay couples who have the same partner for life and when they die the families that wanted nothing to do with their children while they were alive want to come and take what belongs to the partner it is simply grotesque.
2006-10-18 08:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by david r 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
for the reason that Marriage has been accompanied as a criminal top by utilising ability of next of kin contributors and spousal rights it quite is not longer a non secular insitututaion. Surelyt listed under are tens of millions of human beings dwelling int he u . s . a . who have been married in a court docket abode or by utilising Elvis in a rigidity by using in Vegas. those marriages are nevertheless marriages, they are nevertheless criminal unions and that they are in simple terms as valid as though a guy or woman who become married in a church in the past God the ingredient is that if we know secular unions with the comparable criminal rights we could desire to grasp all unions with the comparable top, no count if or not they be between 2 adult men or 2 females. whilst Marriage became a criminal affiliation the church lost the rights to dictate the definition.
2016-11-23 17:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by eatough 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares if they want to get married let em. Im not for all that gay stuff but they have equal rights as citizens just like everybody else. 14th amendment.
2006-10-18 08:29:25 · answer #6 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So long as it isnt called marriage, sure why not?
2006-10-18 08:30:40 · answer #7 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would be for it. i don't care how people live there life. gay, straight, living together without being married. as long as you love each other why does it matter.
2006-10-18 08:23:23 · answer #8 · answered by tiffany228 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Against it: Same-sex unions and trailer trash "common-law" unions should be oppressed with equal fervor. (ARM)
2006-10-18 08:24:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
For it . .gays are human, too, and they should have the same rights as any other couple.
2006-10-18 08:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋