I am not going to bash the bible belt when California passed a Constitutional Initiative that specifically states that marriage is the union better a man and a woman. This was passed by popular vote, not legislative action.
My concern with this issue is not in the legal recognition of gay relationships. It is with the entire definition of marriage. From a legal and governmental definition, I think we need to use some other term than marriage. Marriage is a religiously charged term for a recognised joining of a couple. The majority of religions do not recognise marriages between individuals of the same sex.
I would rather see a clear definition of the legal binding of 2 individuals that does not carry the religious connotation. Then we can deal with all the legal ramifications, such as community property vs. common law states, rights to inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, rights to insurance coverages, Social Security rights, etc. With the religious connotations attached to marriage, those legal issues just get ignored in the self-righteous arguments.
I know that I am asking people to act in a logical fashion, which is illogical. See my signature statement.
__________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
|