Originally Posted by cabse5
Another of SSM advocate's talking points is that church goers can easily practice their religion even if SSM is legal. I don't know if you've followed my postings on the SSM debate, but that is exactly my argument against
SSM. A SS union can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. You see, in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, legislation has already been passed in those states to give unions all the rights and responsibilties of marriage. A union can adopt. A union can share each other's assets. Tax advantages would problably be a federal bill. Not at all impossible.
There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.
See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.