Comment by Gaytor on December 3, 2009 at 8:17pm

Applause

Comment by Paul Tourville on December 6, 2009 at 8:22am

Well said.

I will say, though, and I realize this is an unpopular position, but I think the government should not be in the "marriage business" anyway... call it a matter of semantics if you want, but I think the government *should* regulate and administer the contracts between domestic partners, no matter what their genders, but it should not be called marriage, no matter what their genders.

I think the legal status of people who codify and register committed relationships with the state should be "Domestic Partner", not "Husband" or "Wife", and the relationship should be a "Domestic Partnership", and not a "Marriage", regardless of the genders of the people involved. "Marriage" is a sacrament, according to the faithful. Fine. Let them have it. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating the sacred, anyway!

If you really want to get "Married", do it in a church. There are thousands to choose from, with all kinds of beliefs and rules and so on... you're bound to find one that agrees with you... Just know that a church wedding has no legal force.

If you want the legally recognized rights and responsibilities of two people who've committed to share their lives, form a Domestic Partnership. Just know that it is not necessarily sanctioned by any religion.

That's my $0.02, anyway....

Comment by Nelson on December 6, 2009 at 3:03pm

@Paul: actually i would totally agree with that. that would create an equal rights situation too. if the state stopped calling it marriage at all and allowed any two consenting adults to be united under the law i'd be fine with that and i think many GLBT's would be too. if the objection to GLBT's getting married is the word "marriage" then get rid of it altogether while still giving everyone the same rights and protections that they would have had under the term "marriage".
in such a situation any church would still be able to perform a religious ceremony called marriage. and as Miss Savino points out churches would still be able to discriminate as they please.

Comment by Jay Catt on December 13, 2009 at 3:01am

wow..awesome. I now like this woman ( whom I never heard of B4)

Comment by Jay Catt on December 13, 2009 at 3:25am

Paul, maybe I agree with you. Here's a wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriag...
Does a same sex couple deserve EACH and every right on this list?
Why do opponets want the exclude from their union being defined a "marrage", which IS what it is , by definition , The entire argument this country is having is based on nothing but bigotry in my opinion. From what I see is its just the theists who block the rights of their fellow citizens. Rather fascist. How many yrs ago was it that we had a writen laws blocking mixed-race marriages?It wasn't untill 1967 that it was deemed unconstitutional. When the hell is this race (human) going to pick up evolving where we left off.?

Comment