ANSWERS: 6
  • Yes. If marriage - and the associated rights - is good enough for one segment of the population, it is good enough for everyone, or the Constitution means nothing. +5
  • Yes, definately. Not to say it's not a step in the right direction. But, unless and until we are granted the same marriage privileges that heterosexuals are, "civil unions" are still separate, but not equal.
  • Not really.
  • First we as a society have to define what is Marriage. Is it a Spiritual Union or is it a Civil event? It cannot be both. The Constitution won't allow that to take place. If we define Marriage as a Spiritual Union than this leaves the various churches to marry anyone they see fit with no Government interference. If we define Marriage as a Civil Event than we will have fifty different standards (or one) that can change as the political winds change. If gay Civil Unions are the same as Straight Civil Unions than I would have no problem with that EX. the British system. If however we are made to jump through extra hoops or do not get the same benefits as straights than that truly would be a second class system and unequal.
  • I beleive so. Because the civil union doesn't offer the same beneifits as the marriage. Although the same principals exist within the relationship. There are two people joining together to make one home. It doesn't matter the sexes of the couple. If there wasn't already enough controversy towards the "gay" community there sure is plenty more comming.
  • Yeah. I do, but I do believe it's better than nothing at all at this point.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy