08-18-2004, 05:34 PM
I'm sorry, but it's not sufficient to say "it'll happen in its own time." You can't simply say that homosexual marriage is acceptable when society says it is acceptable, and until then, it's not. If that attitude is universally adopted, then nothing changes.
Will change happen overnight? Of course not. However, you either support such changes, or you oppose them. If the only opposition to a union between two men or two women is the name, then no true opposition exists. If we setup two "seperate but equal" "unions," (one between a man and a woman, the other between two men or two women), and call one marriage and the other a civil union (while giving identical benefits and limitations to both) then we have one type of union. Words are imperfect; words change, meanings change.
It does not have to be decided this year.
For those members of society living without the benefits of marriage for decades, it cannot be decided soon enough. Yesterday would be too late. Already, the law-makers must consider what will come the day after a new law is passed -- compensation for those whose rights were withheld for years? You'd better believe couples will sue.
The fact is that the term "marriage" comes with a large ammount of baggage. Some of this baggage includes the rights given only to married couples (for example, visitation rights). Couples are, at this very moment, living without these rights, even when they're far more "married" than many "normal" couples.
gekko
Will change happen overnight? Of course not. However, you either support such changes, or you oppose them. If the only opposition to a union between two men or two women is the name, then no true opposition exists. If we setup two "seperate but equal" "unions," (one between a man and a woman, the other between two men or two women), and call one marriage and the other a civil union (while giving identical benefits and limitations to both) then we have one type of union. Words are imperfect; words change, meanings change.
It does not have to be decided this year.
For those members of society living without the benefits of marriage for decades, it cannot be decided soon enough. Yesterday would be too late. Already, the law-makers must consider what will come the day after a new law is passed -- compensation for those whose rights were withheld for years? You'd better believe couples will sue.
The fact is that the term "marriage" comes with a large ammount of baggage. Some of this baggage includes the rights given only to married couples (for example, visitation rights). Couples are, at this very moment, living without these rights, even when they're far more "married" than many "normal" couples.
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"