Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
Hey don't hold my feet to the fire for someone elses opinion.
|
LOL, ok... But the way it's being quoted doesn't represent the nature of what I'm trying to convey.
What I mean is, under the CURRENT definitions, what you quoted could be applied. But I am suggesting we CHANGE the definitions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
#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.
|
If the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Norway, South Africa and Spain can have hetero and gay couples that are recognized as married across other cultures, I'm sure the world will figure it out when the US does it also.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
#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"
|
This is using the current meaning of the word marriage. But if the word is taken away and EVERYONE uses the word CIVIL UNION than the argument no longer applies. The gay community is aspiring for equality and if equality can be found by doing away with the word marriage, I'm sure they would be happy with that. Furthermore, the current MARRIED rights would then become the CIVIL UNION rights, like the right to sponsor a same-sex immigrant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
So it is evident that the gay community in not interested in the idea of
a BIG CHANGE.
|
A compromise is when two parties meets in the middle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
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.
|
Many, many, many people argue that unequal rights in the gay community is also inherently wrong to begin with.
And what was the all out war that gave women the right to vote?
And wasn't the Civil War fought over succession? The positive outcome being the end of slavery..
I don't pretend to have all the answers... I'm just suggesting a new way for government to potentially approach the inequality.
B