>
> >what is second class about civil unions?
>
> They are seperate, and as noted elsewhere, NOT equal to
> marriage. Pretending they are makes them second class. And
> that's assuming that you can live with the whole 'seperate
> but equal' thing, after all the concept has such a glowing
> history. Some of us reject that whole concept as
> inherently demeaning when it's imposed, if same sex
> marital partners can have a civil union then heteros
> should have the same option. Is anyone in the 'Okay, we'll
> let them have civil union' camp advocating for that?
i am advocating exactly that. and interestingly, i've had serious pushback from pro-domestic partnership queers against extending employer non-marital domestic partnership benefits to unmarried heteros with the reasoning that "they can get married anyway". interesting spin on separate but equal, eh?
> And besides, the church I belong to performs marriages,
> not civil unions. Notary publics do that at city hall.
> People who choose to marry usually want to celebrate a
> marriage, not a civil union.
excellent! let's keep marriage in the churches where it belongs and leave laws, contracts, probate, and licensing down at the courthouse where it belongs. that way, if someone wants the civil benefits of what is currently called 'marriage', queer, straight, or (to tie this back to nader) asexual, they go to the courthouse and register. if they want flowers, a shaman, and an altar, they go to a church (after having gone to the courthouse).
-- no Onan
Truth is the most valuable thing we have - so let us economize it.
-- Mark Twain