Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
AS I said...I voted YES. Not sure what part of that you all missed.
I am merely relaying what my friends themselves have told me. Most could give a rats ass what it is called as long as they can do it, get the same benefits, and be left alone because of it.
And its not "same but seperate", its same thing with a different name. It is not segregation of not being allowed to "drink from the same fountain", they are not being discriminated against as far as being allowed to go where everyone else goes, and to compare it that way is preposterous.
Its a freaking WORD...Married or Unioned. Yes it would be a bit of a compromise by one side as far as what to call it, but really is THAT a big deal?
|
Exactly... marriage is just a word - so what's the big deal with letting gays get married?
A very vocal minority's religious convictions? OK - well if that's the case and people feel strongly enough that this word needs to be protected from 'the gay' then the government shouldn't marry anyone. As far as the government is concerned, gay or straight, it only recognizes civil unions and that's all that exists in it's eyes - whatever religious ceremonies and other terms you want to tack on to it is not the government's business.
No more of this 'separate but equal' stuff. Just equal.