California's jealous of Mass...

[flexagon]

you can see it in their eyes.

Come on, statewide appeal.

*crosses fingers*

Comments

[artana.livejournal.com]

I figured out the problem with the whole gay marriage thing.:P I think its the word Marriage. Religions created that word and it has certain connotations to each one. So, then the people whose religions don't tolerate same-sex flip out that one of the religious foundations is being used in a way they don't agree with.

Why don't we call it Civil Partnering, or gah...erm...something more creative than I am being this morning. Then, it is a State only thing where the benefits are all there, but the religious connotations are not. Then, its up to each religion to decide if they will allow the religious wedding to occur.

[flexagon]

Oh, absolutely. I'm all in favor of civil unions for everyone, and 'marriage' being something else that can happen in a church and mean whatever the fundies want it to mean.

I care more about the legal rights than I do about the terminology though. There are others who would disagree with those priorities.

[artana.livejournal.com]

You and I are in agreement then.;) How often does that happen?

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

Although it would be the easier solution, I disagree with the civil unions for everyone deal. I think it is no victory at all to find a new word for unions in order to make same sex relationships more palatable to those who disapprove of them. For example, the catholic church doesn't recognize divorced people's marriages, but that doesn't mean society as a whole has to rename the relationship.

I feel like there are elements of marriage that are sacred, which go beyond the legal rights and terminology (tho' those are important too) that are debased by stepping down to a purely legalistic term like civil unions. But that's probably just the romantic in me. 100 years down the road it wouldn't matter, because that's what the standard would be by then.