Marriage:

1) "Marriage" is not an institution the government should even be involved in.
2) "Marriage" is not a governmental construct, but a religous construct. Remember the seperation of church in state?
3) Thus, thus the only thing the government should be able to do is grant civil unions to heteros and homos alike.
4) The same rights and privilages that marriage used to recieve should be transferred over to civil unions.
5) Since marriage is a religous construct only the church should be able to grant a "marriage."

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton

One could say that "murder" is not something the gov't should be involved in either. After all.....it's a religious tenent that "Thous Shalt Not Kill." Right?

And yet......our gov't DOES make laws against murder. We decide as a society what institutions and laws we want to value and which ones we want the gov't to be involved in. Many of our laws are based on religious tenets. So, I don't think your argument holds water.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Well you see, murder was not a religous construct. Religion did not invent murder. Religion did construct marriage. I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. Please try again.

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton

The government’s job is to protect us. Laws against murder are to keep the peace and protect us from each other. Are you insinuating that the government is getting involved and protecting us from gay people? That’s just silly…

No, I am not. You see, gay people could still get civil unions. In the status quo, they can't even be legally recognized as having a partner. Of course the gov't protects, but it needs to have some limits. This is not totally about gay marriage, but about the seperation of church and state.

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton

Why do you think a "Civil Union" is an institution the government should be involved in? Why should the government be involved in any emotional-based partnership? (Just trying to get you to flesh out your reasoning a bit)

What?

Why? We have laws against Bigamy, do we not? And polygamy. And pedhophila. I'm quite sure there are people who think that's "just silly."

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

As far as I'm concerned let anyone get a civil union with anyone they want. I'm all for financial protections as well as hospital visitation and other rights.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

I think the government should get involved in civil unions because gay couples who want to get married usually do not get the same privileges as hetro-couples (tax benefits, wills, etc.). Besides other state governments are already doing such things (for example, New Jersey). Ask more if you have anymore questions......

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts."
-Bill Clinton