Originally posted by JaTo: I've mixed feelings about the entire issue, but the classical and everlasting definition of marriage is between man and woman. Period.
It doesn't matter what society in what period of history you look at, the popular definition sticks.
It just shouldn't be called marriage, though. Give it the same status, etc., just call it something else. A union, perhaps. In effect the vows and responsibilities should be the same, but in language it should be called something different than marriage.
It's a total case of semantics, but I feel a minimal distinction should be made in the legal language of it all...
I have to agree. But I do think that there should be some type of "union" defined legally not just due to committment, but to allow for insurance, benefits among other things. In the same regard, this "union" can be applied to people living together w/ no intentions of marriage, hetero or homo, whom are fully committed to one another.
As far as "taking it up the a$$", isn't that what they're ASKing of the courts???
1999 Sportage 4x4...don't go there, it was free
....______o_o
.../_l l__\____\
..|--l l__----[]\|/[]
.....................oo
=( )_)----( )_)--)_)
