If the secular union between a man and a woman is called marriage, why not any secular union? Not that I disagree with you.
I think this is a pretty fair proposal, but I think it will open up to a bunch of problems. I lived with the same dude for seven years. If not for my wedding we would probably still be roomies. What is to stop long time room mates from entering sham unions for the tax and insurance savings.
Out of the fear that someone would call you gay or your actions implied that. Not that anyone should care, but I get your point about the fraud implications.
I agree with red however despite opinion I offer observation. Here is some news, I live in California. :wink: My neighborhood is but less then 3 miles from what is about 80% gay establishment. The street I live on has 14 homes within the block. Of those 6 of them are same sex relationships. Aside from the legal bonding what you already have is a legal tie. Gay couples are allowed the same benefits as married couples both in filing taxes, health insurance, beneficiaries and so on. All a marriage is doing is tying in no differently then what common law partnerships already do. The notion that porn shops and burning babies in dumpsters evolving from matrimonies being performed on same sex couples is IMO paranoia of invasion. I am not necessarily a proponent of same sex partnerships as with anything there are pros and cons. Back onto my street, I evaluate both the good and the bad. As a home owner I should. Of the 6 same sex couples all 6 are owners. For the rest there are 3 rentals and 5 heterosexual couples of which only two have a child, including my own. So immediately my kid has to get on his bike and find friends around the block. Of the 6 same sex couples 4 of them are long term relationship/ owners who have all rebuilt/ remodeled their homes. For what I paid for my 800 SF bundle of joy the return is now at around 60% profit. Today, regardless of inventory my property sells within 6 months. That in great part due to the investment contributions from same sex couples. My neighborhood is a tiny example of how the gay population can take over ruins and turn them to gold. Through all that there is no reputation of gay culture as any detrimental influence to the community my child is being raised in. They are all working professionals and they buy Girl Scout cookies no different then the rest. Bases on observation and experience gay couples are, and for the most part contributors rather then deterrents from a growing society. The majority of gay couples are educated earners with the abilities to provide then to be provided for. There are a small percentage of takers which contribute to the being provided for class. Chasing the bug is a term used to identify a gay person who wishes to contract a disease which in turn provides long term benefits. I know this is wrong yet I have no recommendations for the cure. Perhaps medicine discovery will be the catalyst for disengaging the practice. There are many different forms of cultures out there ripping off the system and in many areas more so then the gay population. Through my observations and despite a percentage of systematic rip offs the gay population contributes more positively the negative. My child is not being wrongly influenced and there are no bath houses erupting into the neighbor hood. The church takes their stand accordingly and what is left is the legal system to adjoin a couple’s choice into a ceremony which technically provides what is already legally provided, the only add is a document certifying what is already there. I say let them have it and in doing so prove their cause in its worthiness and work towards thwarting those that abuse, otherwise the system will prove itself wrong and those against can take it back to the judges for a rethink. My observations have shown that there is more good then bad.
I'm not selling my soul and legal fees for what? I said that on the scale of what's important, this one doesn't even register as a blip for me. In California, we are drowning from the cost of illegal immigration. We are also experiencing a flood of businesses out of California, a detriment that I doubt we'll recover from. USC Trojan Family Magazine -Winter 1998: What's New: Why is Business Leaving? That study is several years old now and the number of businesses leaving it estimated at over 3 in 6. So yes, if a few gay people want to get married and contribute several hundred million to the economy, I won't waste my time thinking about it. The original propostion in 2000 simply defined marriage as between a man and woman (14 words to be exact). Since marriage is a concept originating from and alluding to a religious ceremony then I personally don't think it's a matter to be decided by the government. I agree with red's pov which is to have civil unions and leave the marriages to churches and other religious institutions that choose to recognize them or not.
I agreed with Red's stand, and I cannot articulate it better than he did. But, honestly, Cali has a point, too. A gay couple lives three doors down from us, and they are terrific neighbors--very involved, remodeled their home, and keep a fantastic yard (we trade gardening secrets.) It doesn't bother me whom a person chooses to love, and I feel like gay couples should have legal rights to insurance, inheritance, etc. I just have a bit of a problem with the whole religious marriage deal. But as someone else pointed out, if I were Catholic (my husband is, actually), I would be cast as a sinner for using birth control because I don't want six or seven kids. It's all a matter of perspective.
