- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,075
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I see no point in the name change, why would the government have two names for something that is the same, and I also think it would be unconstitutional. You know, the whole separate but equal thing. It's a rather pointless distinction, and nothing more than a tactic to try and delay the inevitable passage of SSM.
And I agree, if it came down to it, I would take it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen it would be ruled unconstitutional at some point.
Sorry I wasnt clear, the different names for different things DEFINITELY is still discrimination and a HUGE slap in the face.
I was talking about if ALL marriages were now referred to has civil unions.
I still think it isnt right because the question would always be asked, WHY was it changed and any honest answer points to discrimination IMO.