Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
I think alot of people are not seeing the forest because of all the trees. The real issue is the use of the term "marriage." The gay lobbyists have insisted on the use of the term "gay marriage" over "gay union" because they wanted to inflame the ultra conservatives and keep the issue in the media. The term marriage historically and religiously (except for the Mormons for a while) has meant the legal union between one man and one woman. Personally, I chose not to even vote because I don't really give a crap one way or the other. Just my .02



I absolutely disagree with this. I have found it to be the polar opposite. They are seeking equal treatment under a govt sanctioned union. We have a group of conservatives trying to protect the history and sanctity of a word while the other side is trying to help a minority. I used to be against gay marriages, but only because I am conservative. When asked why, I was embarrassed that all I could come up with was "The majority rules", "The bible says its wrong!" and "Webster's defines marriage as between a man and a woman" when in reality I had nothing to lose and nothing to gain in the matter. The only group that has anything to gain or lose is the minority in this case. How would allowing gay marriage effect me? I'm not sure of the tax implications, but I suspect that a drastic minority couldn't cause too much of a shake up there. This is how I believe this issue differs from Abortion. The people against it are fighting for the rights of what they consider a defenseless child (I agree with them), whereas in this case, the people against gay marriage are defending the rights of a term.

My proposal would be to remove marriage from legal documents, replace it with civil union for all legal unions. The term marriage in the historical sense would remain a religious based ceremony which would, upon completion, result in a legal civil union. Just like those dirty gays when they are united legally.

And to people in general, please refrain from letting your IQ's sink to record lows by bringing up slippery slope scenarios. "Well, what if some geologist fell in love with a rock? that will have to be allowed, too". The best argument I have heard against the civil union idea is that it would somehow effect the sanctity of their marriage which I found to be an extraordinarily weak argument. In fact, I feel bad for anyone in a marriage with such a weak foundation, it will surely not last in today's society.

Who knows? Maybe the ultra-conserative's just aren't ready to make the commitment to the men in their lives and are using this as an excuse.


"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit" -Mitch Hedberg