Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltAlum
With emphasis on the "substantial portion." Not the entire structure of American Law.
The decision here is not on civil unions, but marriage.
Right?
A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.
|
No, not the entire structure, but a very substantial portion. I'm not advocating that we should reference the Bible when states determine that they desire to continue the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman.
You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?
This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.
So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?
Threaded Mode
