--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <snip> > I don't see how > permitting two adults who love each other to > solemnize that love in a legal > relationship can possibly "threaten" the institution > of marriage; if anything, it > shows just how strong the belief in marriage is. And > besides, what's more > "threatening," anyway: two gay people making a > commitment that lasts years, or > Britney Spears on a whim marrying some dope for a > few hours and then ditching > him? Why is it legal for her, and not for a > committed, loving, responsible same-sex couple? Dang! When I saw this thread, *I* wanted to bring up the "But Brittany's 54-hour marriage _is_ legal?!" Ah, well. ;)
<serious> A couple of decades-and-odd-years ago, I thought that inter-racial marriage was OK for two adults, but it was unfair to any child produced because of the prejudice against biracial children (at the time I was living in the deep South). A decade ago, the same could be said for children of gay couples, unless the family was living in an accepting city such as San Fran, New York, or Austin, TX. Now we have many Tiger Woods, and being multi-racial is not only acceptable, but in some cases even "cool." [frex being able to claim Native American heritage here in America, or aboriginal blood in Australia] I strongly suspect the same will happen with children of gay couples; yet someday it will only be one identifier among many, like 'living in a red brick house' or 'having brown hair.' I'd be fine with calling all state-recognized couples "civil unions," and religiously-sanctioned unions "marriage" -- of course churches/temples/etc. that accept gay members would then be able to join gay couples 'in matrimony.' [<grin> Even if no future matron is involved.] To deny same-sex couples the protection of legal and medical rights granted heterosexual couples is both unfair and devastating -- I have seen the dying wishes of one partner-of-decades ignored in favor of a blood family member's override (never mind that there had been practically no contact with any blood relatives since 'coming out'). The wording of the current FMA does seem ambiguous enough to negate potential state-sanctioned 'civil unions.' And frankly it smells to me like the Prohibition Amendment: if passed, it will be stupidly contentious, and eventually overturned. One of the local (Colorado Springs) folks from _Focus on the Family_, in a recent TV interview, stated that 'this issue is the most serious facing the United States today!' Seems to me employment, education, healthcare and of course terrorism are among the many issues of much greater importance we face. He also worried that this was the first step toward polygamy and other 'perversions.' <scratches head> Guess he's missed the news about various polygamists in Utah and elsewhere... (And if we lived in a society where women greatly outnumbered men for some reason, there might be a legitimate need for such contracts. What I found so repugnant about the most recent case in the general news - Green, IIRC? - was that a girl of 14 or so was "married" (with her mother already married to the same man!) to some POS middle-aged geezer who wasn't even supporting his many children, rather his "wives" collected welfare to get by.) Debbi who did not come to these views without a great deal of thought, and after having seen a great deal of unnecessary grief and suffering __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
