Meh, I'd *rather* have marriage, but if someone were going to hand me something that was *actually* the same as marriage, I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers. Especially if it were more than just a state at a time. Widespread. IJS.
I'm pragmatic. I'd rather have the shit than fight for the word. I figure if we have civil unions or whatever the hell they want to call them, in ten or twenty years, when we've had those and the world has not collapsed, at some point, people go "oh. yeah. duh"
I can see the argument that we shouldn't settle, and I have definitely seen people settle for things that were NOT worth settling for--things that were LESS than equal. Things that were selling out friends of theirs, for example (ie, "oh, well, we'll get equal rights for the gays, and sucks for the trannies! Maybe someday!") And that shit ain't right. But...
Although I couldn't get past her horrible butchering of "yarmulke."
ha!
My personal opinion is that government should be completely out of the "marriage" business altogether. Gov't should issue civil unions, i.e. binding legal contracts between adults, to any persons who wish to be united by law. I could give a rat's ass if it's 2 people or 5.
And "marriage" would be left up to religious organizations to do with what they see fit. Lots of churches are open to gay marriage. And lots of 'em aren't. As with any church, you're welcome to be a member of any you think fits your needs.
The end.
I am pretty much with you, javachik. I know straight couples who don't believe in legal marriage, churches that celebrate gay marriage, etc. Some (gay) close family friends now have two anniversaries -- their church wedding 15 years ago (that I'm pretty sure my father co-celebrated), and their legal marriages when MA passed marriage equality.
Her perspective is interesting -- as long as the government-approved union with all the same rights as marriage is legal for gay people, then it doesn't have to be called "marriage" -- but my impression (based solely on the media) is that, in general, gay people don't want separate-but-equal status, with a differently-named union. If "marriage" is good enough for the hetero American citizens, then why should gay American citizens be forced to accept anything else?
I think the same-sex legal contract in Great Britain is civil marriage rebranded without the word marriage. (Civil partnership vs. civil marriage.)
My personal opinion is that government should be completely out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Amen.
My personal opinion is that government should be completely out of the "marriage" business altogether. Gov't should issue civil unions, i.e. binding legal contracts between adults, to any persons who wish to be united by law. I could give a rat's ass if it's 2 people or 5.
And "marriage" would be left up to religious organizations to do with what they see fit.
This is my opinion as well; my earlier post was just my attempt at articulating *my perception* of the general arguments in favor of gay marriage. (I just wanted to be clear.)
Oh, uh, today is Strega's birthday!
Birthday Happies for Strega!!
I am javachik. "We're very pretty."
happy birthday, Strega.
I'm in the corner with the 'get the state out of marriage and make civil unions - a legal contract- the state business"
One of the reasons I can't see civil unions becoming the default any time soon is then one'd have to admit that as much as they may hope for "till death do us part" it's not at all mandated by the procedure.
