It had to do with organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds.
There is no obvious reason to assume children will result from the union, so there is no compelling interest in violating the gay couple's right to privacy.
It's rather quite noble for the state to recuse itself from relationships it has no business melding in.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-18-09 at 05:57 PM.
I don't know anything about the issue though. Is there more to it? If it's causing some problems somewhere I'd reconsider.
Last edited by teamosil; 10-18-09 at 06:47 PM.
And getting married wasn't always a church thing. In fact marriages through the state was quite common before the church ever even got involved in the marriage business.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
If the Girl-Scouts wanted to, they could do everything the Boy-Scouts did, and only the name would be different.
Why a different name? (because you asked 'why not just call civil unions 'marriage' also if they have the same rights) '. Well, the name describes who's in it. "Marriage" is 2 people becoming one flesh, ie; raising children. Civil Union is merely 2 people sharing financial resources.
They are different yet equal under the law, even if unequal in public opinion.
But, regardless, mostly I just don't really see anybody being hurt by the division between boy and girl scouts, where I do see that people would be hurt by school segregation or making a big deal about how gay people can only get 'civil unions' whereas straight people can 'marry'. Culturally the term marriage is endowed with all sorts of positive connotations and whatnot. Excluding gays from that seems discriminatory to me. That said, to me, the name is a relatively minor issue. If they got civil unions that were really exactly the same, I'd be thrilled.
They can be forced to testify against each other? So can friends with benefits, common-law married couples and even monogamous engaged couples, so who cares.
Most of the legal buffs are either myths (like hospital visitation) or easily bypassed (like inheritance) to matter at all.
Also, since I don't support hetero-marriage for the sake of convenient legal buffs all in one package, I'm not about to support gay-marriage for the sake of automating a living-will/power-of-attorney/medical-proxy.
The only things uniqu to "marriage" are protections for couples raising children under the "becoming one flesh" concept. Childless couples do not apply.
I don't agree with the other stuff you said, but we've been through that part already, so I think you know my take.
Last edited by teamosil; 10-18-09 at 09:46 PM.
Gay marraige should be treated legally exactly the same as heterosexual marriage. If one is legal, so is the other. If one is consititutional, then so is the other. Logically, they are identical under every facet other than sexual preference, and since no law can be made denying a person sexually, racially, religiously, etc... then gay marraige is as legal and constitutional as hetero marriage.