Quote:
Originally posted by MarchHare@Dec 9 2004, 02:06 PM
Quote:
Give them whatever rights/responsibilites come with marriage but don't call it that. In fact, there is a way around the situation. Why change the definition of marriage at all? Why not just write a new law that gives gay couples the same rights and call it something else.
|
Are you familiar with the phrase "seperate but equal" and why it's a bad idea?
|
I suppose you have a point, but we already have somewhat of a situation like that. What's the difference between common law and actual marriages? Nothing but the name, except the common law people chose not to have a ceremony. Same rights/responsibilites and they seem perfectly happy.
I can totally see where you are comming from but segregation is not the same. We all know that the "Seperate But Equal" was a whole lot more seperate than it was equal. All I'm suggesting is comming up with a diferent name for gay marriages, but give it the exact same definition. JPs can still do it, priests still don't have to (just as they don't have to marry non catholics or whatever, if they don't want to). Is it a perfect solution? No, but I think it's a good middle ground, we get to keep the definition of marriage (leave the consitution alone, and avoid any anti-gay challenges) and create a new union that is for all intents and purposes a marriage except it's two chicks or two guys.
In fact, I'd like to propose that people suggest names for gay marriage (not durrogatory of course) then we can all refer to it as that.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!