> Saying you're for "civil union" but not "marriage" is an admission
> that you're going for a second-class institution. Press people on why
> they make the distinction and the hem and haw and can't answer
> because they can't bring themselves to admit to a prejudice.
I make this distinction and it is pretty clear to me: "marriage" is for religion, "civil unions" are a specific type of contract recognized by the State.
The point is that supporting this angle means that a hetero couple must get a civil union as well. If they want to get "married" then they do that with their church. But their religious "marriage" is not legally recognized unless it is also a "civil union". The "marriage" is where you make promises before some god(s) if you are into that thing. But the civil union is where you make agreements about joint ownership of property, care for children, etc. Certainly there would be a basic civil union contract based upon the State's current definition for legal "marriage" but couples (or more, I suppose) who wanted a customized contract would be free to do so (as people currently do with prenuptial agreements).
How is that prejudice? It grants same-sex couples or any kind of family unions identical legal status and keeps the gov't out of the Churches, an alledged Conservative position.
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
My top-level question about Sept. 11 is, do we really want to live in a world in which U.S. intelligence can detect every half-million-dollar, 20-person, two-year activity?
-Whitfield Diffie