flexagon: (Default)
[personal profile] flexagon
you can see it in their eyes.

Come on, statewide appeal.

*crosses fingers*

Date: 2005-03-15 10:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] artana.livejournal.com
You and I are in agreement then.;) How often does that happen?

Date: 2005-03-16 05:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Profile

flexagon: (Default)
flexagon

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 17th, 2026 05:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios