Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[KSig RC]

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:



. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:



. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

What's your point here?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

What's your point here?

Probably that offering "civil unions" is a way of having two classes of citizens. At least that's my guess.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:



. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

Well said!