Originally posted by Dan Nixon: Wow..43 pages. You guys have this figured out yet?
For my 0.02, this is not an issue of banning anything, it is about changing a definition, a longstanding and very emotional one. Civil unions or whatever you call them can potentially have whatever benifits you want to include..up to every legal perk that relates to marriage. It can be called whatever, "union", "coupling," "joining", plenty of pleasant terms..except the name marriage. Gay unions are the same and yet different than marriage.
Black is not dark grey, yet both are colors and one is not intrinsically better than another. They are close but a little different. Shall we call them the same?
Frankly, it is not a big deal to me what it is called. I do not really want to change the constitution for this (and seriously doubt it will happen). But I personnally think it is odd that the focus is NOT about simply keeping the institutional benifits comparable, making sure that whatever name is selected..it is a respected entity, and LESS on the name itself.
If I understand you correctly, I actually think you've got it figured out.
1) Institute a form of union called "civil union," available to all without qualification; with essentially the same benefits of the union now known as "marriage." 2) Let religious groups sanctify a union as they see fit, according to their principles, to be known as "marriage" but with no associated civil rights or obligations. 3) Let civil institutions administer the requirements for licensing, as in a "civil union" license, but get out of the business of issuing "marriage licenses." 4) Repeal any amendments banning "civil unions." 5) Amend the constituion to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
