Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to re: Flap

re: "... the legal implications of two words ..."
D. Spires — (archived)

... the legal implications of two words ...

Yes, that is exactly where it's going Fox, and this is why:

Neither will those amendments prevent couples, same-sex and opposite-sex, from making and keeping lifelong committments "without benefit of clergy" (or justices of the peace), as they have for millennia.

Without benifit of legal recognition:

* one cannot visit his/her life-long partner in ICU
* one cannot lay claim to any of his/her life-long partner's properties should they "divorce"
* one cannot lay claim to any of his/her life-long partner's properties should one of them die
* one cannot make life decissions for his/her incapacitated/disabled life-long partner
* one cannot claim tax advantages a married couple might be entitled to

There are others.

The legal definitions for "marriage" and "civil union" have become more than just another political hurdle for 2004. It's become a true necessity for this nation, and without it we all lose. It may be swept under the carpet (again) come election day, but it will not go away.

Dan

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (101 posts)