My take
Posted By: AnudderMT on 2009-05-02
In Reply to: Will somebody please tell me...(sm) - ctmt
1) What rights a civil union does not have that a marriage does? Why can't we just apply those rights equally, and still retain "marriage" as 1 man/1 woman?
There are the obvious tax implications- there is a lot of money to be saved by being able to file jointly as opposed to single. In addition, there are rights of inheritance, next-of-kin type decisions in the event of illness, even things like medical insurance entitlements that straight couples don't really think about.
As I noted in an earlier post, my version of a perfect solution is to refer to it as civil union for everybody, carrying all the same rights and benefits for all, and those that want the religious connotations can get married.
2) Isn't it necessary to also condone mutiparty civil unions? If you say marriage shouldn't only be defined as a man and a woman, then on what legal ground would you say marriage can only be between two people? Is everyone who is FOR same-sex marriage also FOR marriage for polygamists?
Frankly, that's an argument that I hear them use on Fox news all the time and I don't know why it necessarily has to extend that far. Do hear them on Fox news, allowing gays to marry is also pushing us down the slippery slope to marrying livestock. Just because something "might" happen does not necessarily justify stripping one group of their civil rights. I'm sure there were all sorts of doomsday predictions associated with giving women the right to vote and yet somehow we as a nation have survived it.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
