Subject:
|
More Election Bad News?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:11:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1241 times
|
| |
|
|
Looks like Proposal 2, a state amendment banning all forms of homosexual unions
will be passed in Michigan:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0410/22/a01-312436.htm
I don't get it. Can't we have the word 'marriage' stricken from all our laws and
legalese and replaced with the term "civil union", open to all hetro and gay
couples? Churches can then be free to define their own "marriages" as religious
(yet non-legal) contracts sanctioned by God?
Doesn't that then afford equal rights under the law and yet preserve the
so-called traditional "definition of marriage"?
Spencer
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) That is such a simple and elegant solution to the whole debate. I was really hoping Kerry (or somebody!) would voice this opinion--it's such a simple, easy-to-make-sense-of position, compared to his (and others') "I am against letting gay (...) (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) IMO, we should tell religion to shut the heck up re: matters of legislation, and we should recognize homosexual marriage on the same footing as heterosexual marriage. If religious groups want to endorse only a certain kind of marital union, (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) Well, since the returns were suggesting that this is going to pass 2:1, it looks like this is a good time to bring this thread back into play. Michigan doesn't really have a reputation as a gay-friendly State (outside of Saugatuck, at least), (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
