this upsets me.
that's all i got for now.
wait, i added more, starting here.
if i was still posting on "HAWKEN BLOG" (god there's no good way of referencing nitin's site), i would post this there. the economist is so silly. sometimes its sooo progressive, and other times... yeah, not so much. they probably have it figured out then, huh?
i'm a history major
0920-march04-2004
this post has been edited on march 4, 2004 09:27
comments
re: civil unions
from: niv (2004-03-04 12:25:48)
civil unions aren't enough because they are state to state, and there are a ton of federal benefits to being married. then again, your solution of making all marriages civil unions and changing the wording takes care of this... but its a pretty obtuse way of pleasing the small majority slash large minority of the public (polling on gay marriage is all over the place)
re: i understand the current differences...
from: chad (2004-03-04 14:35:04)
...between marriage and civil union, but my "plan," as it were, is to eliminate those differences. Marriage as a cultural institution would lose no meaning if it was no longer a legal term but only a cultural/religious one. And it wouldn't lose meaning as a legal term, it would just switch from marriage, to union. This allows the idiots who think their marriage will lose meaning to keep the importance of their marriage in a cultural/religious sense while stopping the government from unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
also, why is it that the sanctity of marriage requires gay people to be denied access to it, but no one ever says, "yeah, you SAY you are dating, but gay people do that, so really, what does it even mean anymore?" also, does anyone else see the similarity to "i must protect the sanctity of my marriage by not allowing homosexuals to marry" and "i must protect my child's education by keeping blacks in separate schools"?
re: or!
from: niv (2004-03-04 15:40:04)
chad, trying to trick everyone. its funny, don't worry
and the more direct analogy is between "i must protect the sanctity of my marriage by not allowing homosexuals to marry" and "i must protect the sanctity of my marriage by not allowing interracial couples to marry"
re: hmmm
from: Nick (2004-03-04 20:34:25)
Yea, i mean, George Bush wants to protect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage... a vow that is so strong that more than half of heterosexual marriages end. Gays should be allowed full marriage rights with all the benefits of a heterosexual marriage because in the end love is love and why should we only recognize the heterosexual desire to be monogomous with one person for the rest of ones life?
re: wish i had time to read more...
of the economist article, cause i think i would agree with almost everything. the one thing in there that i semi-disagree with is the idea that civil unions aren't enough. personally, i think that marriage should be taken fully out of state and federal law and only civil unions should exist, legally. marriage, at least i think, should be purely a religious thing (this would protect the sanctity of marriage for the idiots who are worried about this) and let any couple who so desires be granted a civil union, which would have all the legal implications that marriage does now.