Somewhere in the Pentagon: "General, there is a Ms. Steisand for you on line 1"
I'm all for gay couples having the same kinds of rights as straight couples, but I don't understand why they have to use the term marriage. There are all kinds of examples where very similar products can only be called by a certain name under certain conditions...champagne versus sparkling wine is a good example. Why can't they keep marriage as referring to a man and a woman, like hundreds of years of tradition, and simply have a legally identical "civil union" or some other name? I don't see why they need to debase the term marriage to achieve their ends.
Great idea, but why stop there. I "get it" that there needs to be a way to assign legal rights. While I am on the lunatic right wing fringe that gets setup like a strawman around here so often, I take commitment seriously. The majority of the posters around here do not share my religious beliefs - no problem there, so why can't EVERYONE have a civil union? If I can get the "civil union" license then have my "marriage ceremony" that has additional religious significance to me..great! If you don't share my beliefs, you go get your "civil union" license so we are both equal under the law then go knock yourself out with something that is significant to you. I don't object to the equal rights part, I DO object to taking my "marriage" ceremony and trying to change the definition. Yes honey, I will take out the trash as soon as I get this posted.....
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb