Date: 9/4/2003 8:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 60052
They are never going to be able to make everyone happy. I say to each their own. If gay people want to get married, they should be able to do so. No matter what bills are passed there are still going to be complainers.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 8:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15394
well I totally agree with you, but this seems like a huge step toward some equality for those that life outside the "mainstream"...  |
Date: 9/4/2003 8:52:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15394
live outside the "Mainstream" that was ...  |
Date: 9/4/2003 8:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
YES, this suffices in my mind, and as you probably know, I am one who does not believe the word "married" can be applied to same sex union. This could even be applicable for people who live together as "friends" without any sexual relationship at all. I think anybody should have the right to designate who they want benefits (that they are paying for) to apply to. And, the same legal entanglements of breaking up in this type of partnership needs to be in place also. God Bless.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 9:01:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15394
thanks Deb, I liked that with the perks comes too the responsibility.. but, I think from what little I know of the subject this may be farther reaching if they designate this domestic partnership beyond living together in "marriage" and roommate type status being invoked. Elderly often live together without marriage for benefit of social security which would end if they remarried, so will the law be able to reach into that domestic partnership and deny benefits because of roommate status??  |
Date: 9/4/2003 9:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 27534
Sigh.....only in California........ I agree with Deb....  |
Date: 9/4/2003 9:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
It works for me. I just read an article in the Austin newspaper about the new Canadian law and how there is no rush to the alter by gays. One gay man was quoted as saying he liked living outside the mainstream and by getting married It would be conforming. Go figure. Can't make everyone happy.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 51635
I'd be happy with that, now it just needs to be national...  |
Date: 9/4/2003 10:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Just because people wish to live together would not put them in a de facto "domestic partnership". They would have to take the steps via licensing to put them in that type of relationship if that is what they want to do. God Bless.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 12:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 35720
Hey, one step at a time right?  |
Date: 9/4/2003 12:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Baby steps, baby steps... but they are still steps!  |
Date: 9/4/2003 1:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
I would say it all depends on how you are going to prove domestic partnership.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
marriage was around before any form of christianity so i dont see why it should be considered a christian ritual, i still dont see this as good enough cause its still discrimination  |
Date: 9/4/2003 5:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
Marriage is by no means a religious union in the eyes of the Law. Marriage is a civil contract, analagous to a merger of two corperations. The denial to homosexuals the right of access to this or any civil proceedure is discrimination. Those against homosexual marriages will quote a list of reasons why their point of view is right; usually they mention the Bible, children, and families several times. They claim that homosexual marriages would be unstable environment for children and adults alike. I would like to point out that as of 1996, 46% of all marriages in the USA ended in divorce. That's heterosexual marriages. And I want to know why the "Defense Of Marriage Act" and its supporters feel that a 46% divorce rate is ok for the American family. How many children of straight couples are abused, how many wives and husbands are beaten by their spouse? How many murderers and rapests have been forbidden to have kids? Go look for consistency in the religious right, trust me it's not there.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 7:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
ehh, I think its ridiculous, here we go with special rights again.  |
Date: 9/4/2003 9:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
I know my hubby and I would've liked the positives to this bill when weren't married but were living together. I don't however, like the part about responsibility of your partner's debts!  |
Date: 9/5/2003 3:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
What's so special about the right to marry someone that you love? What's so special about the right to disregard the tenets of a faith which you do not espouse?  |
Date: 9/5/2003 5:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
special rights? i think not more like equal rights  |
Date: 9/8/2003 8:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Smurf poo, how is it "special" for the 563rd time.  |
Date: 9/8/2003 11:54:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15394
I must concur with the question for smurfpoo... how is this special rights?? I see it more as an equal rights thing, even tho it is not quite that even...  |