(For the purpose of this question, regard civil unions as completely equal to marriage in regarding to death, health, property, and tax benefits and rights).
A) An acceptable "starting point" toward complete and total gay marriage, ie, a victory, OR
B) A completely unacceptable "second-class citizen" ranking that should be avoided, nothing is acceptable except total equality. OR
C) Completely acceptable and would be fine if there were two systems, civil unions and marriage. OR
D) Other?
2007-11-23 19:38:04 · 9 answers · asked by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Personally I think "Civil Unions" should be the only Government recognized contract between anyone gay or straight, And we should let "Marriage" be a completely religious thing, gay or straight...
But I strongly suspect being rational and reasonable won't satisfy either side in this argument..
Let me point out one more little factoid:
In most states it is still contrary to law (Florida where I live) for an unmarried man and woman to live in the same house who are not related.. it's OK to have male roommates if you are male and female roommates if you are female, but a female may not (according to state law) have a male room ate. (to be fair: supreme court rulings have negated most of these laws, but they remain on the books)
Looks like unmarried gays have an advantage on the books in many states...
2007-11-23 20:24:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm, good question. I don't see why strait people should be to monopolize the word "marriage". It is after all just a word. I am totally for gay marriage. I don't see why things should be complicated further by having to add another term to our already confusing legal terminology system, so not (c). I do feel that this term would provide yet another cast in our "class" system, so maybe (b). But the reality is likely that gay marriage will not start out as being called "marriage" so (a) is likely.....
I chose (D)- see above
2007-11-25 01:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by dogwhisperer16 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
B
as a gay man I say B because well to paraphrase one of your answers
"give'em the world just let me have the benefits"
I've know couple that have been together for 15 years and have their lives totally intertwined yet, if one died right now they would have been considered nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law.
Civil Unions can never be considered equal to marriage otherwise it would be called
" MARRIAGE"
Also you can think of it like this. The constitution guaranties the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if I wanted to marry my partner and my state/country tells me no
you have just denied my pursuit of happiness,
put a condition on my liberty: since in some states sodomy is still an arrestable offense and you can be put in jail
and have also impacted the way that I chose to live my life. If I've made the decision to live my life loving my same sex partner then by the constitution no state, or official, has the right to tell me no.
then again I don't sit on the supreme court and I guess interpreting the law is up to them right. or is it in the hands of the people that abide and live by the laws?
2007-11-24 05:08:26 · answer #3 · answered by krisbrown1979 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I say fine remove marriage from any non-church joining gay or strait if it is a civil service at the court house -justice of the peace it is a civil union if it is performed by a clergy member it is marriage same Civil rights for both. And let it be at the clergies discretion and civil unions be available to all. everyone says marriage is religious so there you are.... and why then do atheist and agnostics get married?
2007-11-24 03:59:31 · answer #4 · answered by korey_mcanaw 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
C I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Gay people should have civil unions which are exactly the same as marriages but not called marriage. It's a way to appease everyone.
2007-11-24 04:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by GOTHIC TARA J 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
D. Our government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.
2007-11-24 05:38:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm assuming they're an improvement over an outright ban on gay legally-recognized relationships.
A. It's sad that a first step is necessary, but it's better than nothing.
2007-11-24 03:43:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I always agreed with A. Let them have the word, just give me the benefits!!!
2007-11-24 03:48:14 · answer #8 · answered by Beau 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A
it's better than nothing, but total equality is what is truly needed.
2007-11-24 03:49:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋