Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
If you believe gay unions are worthy of the same protections and should be given the same "rights and protections" by the government as separate sex marriages, then I think it makes sense to simply call them "marriages" too. Retaining different words for the same thing ("union" verus "marriage") is in my view an attempt at "separate but equal" and a denial that they are/will be (in your view) the same.
|
Sure "it makes sense", except that many people have lived their whole lives understanding otherwise and for whatever reason (nostalgia?), don't want to learn new definitions.
Did you really say "separate but equal"? I was going to pooh-pooh it (and chide you), but if its merely a matter of ensuring that the "marriage department" at city hall becomes the "marriage and civil union department" (with a single line for everybody), than I guess I can see a reason you would be concerned that wouldn't happen. If its nothing more than calling two arrangements, identical but for the relative genders of the parties involved, by different names, I don't think the term applies. But if you are thinking of something like the G creating a new (and separate) department for this, than I guess that's something we'll all have to watch for with vigilance.
B/c we all know the tendencies of government. As I once told a girl who was going to work at the CBO (who absolutely hates my guts for this and other funnies), "sweetie, of course your job is gonna be easy... if there was enough for one person to do, they'd hire two people to do it". For reasons that I think you and I might share, I'm against that happening in any context including the one we are discussing.
