I think you're in luck flstf, that's what I assume the "civil union" is supposed to be.
Now I must admit I don't follow this issue at all in the press, but I vaguely recall hearing Bush says he supports civil unions. Is this right?
If so then I can only assume we've caused nationwide anger over semantics... bonus points?
Obviously the issue has gone beyond that point, I don't want to trivialize what the other posters here are discussing, but I think this should be clearly an economic issue. I posted in another forum that Insurance companies surely don't want this to go though; more beneficiaries = more money = more money taken from either your check or your bosses bottom line for insurance 'cause they're gettin their cut either way. But people want their benefits so if you want to argue for or against it on that ground I certainly couldn't fault you.
I don't know what the economic benefits are for married couples but I would imagine them to be fairly substantial. Pushing for them otherwise would have to equate to some sort of socio-religious reason. If that's the case then tread lightly if you want to argue for it
and seperation of church and state in the same breath. Don't forget marriage is a religious institution, we may have given a legal context to it over the years, but I'ld bet more marriages are presided over by some sort of religious figure than a justice of the peace, gay strait or otherwise. If some stat-hound can find some numbers I'ld be much obliged.
I'ld say I'm vaguely against it for the uber-petty reason that I hate people gettin shit that I don't. Marriage benefits, child tax credits, affirmative action, medicaid, Social Security, bugger that, I want 'em too or get rid of 'em. 'course my opinion would change if I was a old, married, perscription drug needing, black woman applying to lawschool with kids.
-fibber