08-17-2004, 05:42 PM
So, the government should continue to issue civil unions that would come with all the rights that are now given to people who are legally married.
What rational basis is there for giving special legal rights to 2 adults who sign a contract? Either it is the place of government to support family structure (or make practical concessions to that effect), or it is not. If it is, then it is fair game to have a political discussion on the moral and practical purposes behind the concept of family. If not, all of these legal rights should be dissolved, and a "civil union" would literally be nothing more than a contractual obligation between parties, with the government playing no role other than to settle lawsuits between the parties involved.
I think you are wrong in saying the issue is primarily a legal one. However, insofar as the issue is a legal one, your solution is hardly a compromise. It is giving one side the legislation they want, and hoping to appease the other side by using a euphanism.
What rational basis is there for giving special legal rights to 2 adults who sign a contract? Either it is the place of government to support family structure (or make practical concessions to that effect), or it is not. If it is, then it is fair game to have a political discussion on the moral and practical purposes behind the concept of family. If not, all of these legal rights should be dissolved, and a "civil union" would literally be nothing more than a contractual obligation between parties, with the government playing no role other than to settle lawsuits between the parties involved.
I think you are wrong in saying the issue is primarily a legal one. However, insofar as the issue is a legal one, your solution is hardly a compromise. It is giving one side the legislation they want, and hoping to appease the other side by using a euphanism.