Neither.
This was sparked by Dean and his "perfect" setup for gay unions in New Hampshire, and spurred with the announcement that Kerry's daughter is gay (pretty sure it was Kerry, anyway), and yet he opposes gay marriage.
The crux of the issue is that "marriage" is a religeious term, and most religions have something against gays. Therefore, gay marriages should be opposed. It's purely religious.
"Union" is a political term, and most forward-thinking democracies should have no qualms about gay unions, after all, even homosexuals vote.
The main issue, though, is whether a "union" should hold the same legal rights as a "marriage". Dean says yes, and I agree.
As for the prez, it was demanded that he do something about it. He did. The Dems, I think, will eventually buckle under the weight of this issue.
Dan
Current Events » in reply to Gay marriage amendment
re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
