Hey don't hold my feet to the fire for someone elses opinion.
#1 According to the writer Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse.
It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. So it not just a USA thing, a federal thing.
#2 The way the word marriage is used is fine within the Gay community.
All they want is to have that definition apply to their relationship just
like anyone else who is married.
It appears that the meaning of the word provides substance to a joined relationship and because of that Civil unions by concept does not provide equal recognition.
The Article sites this example "A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege"
So the article concludes by saying "As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike"
So it is evident that the gay community in not interested in the idea of
a BIG CHANGE.
Finally you use the example of laws that prohibited women and people of color from voting or having full voting rights Which was inherently wrong to begin with and sparked an all out war to change it.
There has never been anything wrong with the term "marriage" and it's usage that would warrant an all out battle by anyone to neuter the term
or it's implication regarding the institution it represents.
You would need a lot more people beating drums in the streets before the change you suggest would even have a glimmer of hope. Besides; as has been shown that's not what the gay community wants anywho........
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by B-Line
Come on Barry, you and I both know that the legal issues on state and federal could be updated and changed. NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE. Especially if we are talking about the change on a federal level.
If there were once laws that prohibited women and people of color from voting or having full voting rights, certainly if that could be changed, so too could the definition of CIVIL UNION.
#2, YES, but that is because of the way the word marriage is used, which could be changed so no one can use the word Marriage.
It would be Civil Unions for ALL couples, in all states, with all the same benefits... No more word Marriage as it applies to STATE (and when I say STATE, I mean GOVERNMENT, not California and New York..)
|
__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….
