last post from me tonight, i promise
So the latest furore involves Bush endorsing a constitutional ammendment that would enshrine marriage as the union between a man and a woman, which, of course, leaves the homosexual couples of america out in the cold. or does it?
right up front, i'm going to say that i personally think the institution of marriage should remain as it has traditionally been, the union of a man and a woman. goodness knows it hasn't been the most stable of traditions, what with Vegas marriages and quickie divorces in Reno and that kind of thing. but it's what we have, and it's what our old friend Paul tells us to do in the Bible (and while i have my issues with Paul, i'm gonna let it slide for now).
but that doesn't preclude my wanting the right to civil unions for homosexual couples. i don't think they should be denied the benefits of a civil union -and before anyone asks what a civil union is, i'm going to define it as an institution that the state officiates (you can become united at City Hall, as it were) and provides both partners with the same legal and civil protections as if they had been married (in Las Vegas!). that means they are each other's next of kin, they get parental rights if one partner has a child, partner benefits at the workplace..you know, all the good stuff that married people get. OH. TAX BREAKS. yeah. because as far as i am concerned they should be given the same recognition of long-term partnerships as heterosexual couples are, thank you very much.
(and if one more person gives me the homosexuality = promiscuity argument, i swear i am going to drown him in the nearest sewer grate. -derisive snort- as if heterosexuality were automatically protection against promiscuous behaviour. helllloooo?)