(no subject)

[kz_blogorambling]

I'm starting to feel like a heel for my vote...

In that American Family Association (Ha, Families only the way THEY define them) I was one of the people who voted for civil unions rather than marriage.

it's not that *I* have anything against the concept of same-sex marriage. It's just that some people seem rather hung up on the term (and the Webster dictionary definition of) "marriage". So I figgered, let them have their term if it's that precious to them. What I care about are rights, and if those can be attained with another term like "civil union" than I'm happy. I was being accommodating (or so I thought) but as few people are crowing over those votes, I feel like people think that's the more penurious choice.

Comments

[jamespolk.livejournal.com]

My view is that the word marriage should be a word without any civil meaning. It should be defined by individual and non-governmental groups. And they can define it however they want without recognizing the definition of the other.

If two men consider themselves married, great. But the Catholic church doesn't have to agree.

I would prefer that there not even be civil unions. I'd rather such protections as are implied just be a contractual matter between two people. Go to a laywer, sign some papers, etc. But I'll never win on that, so if the government wants to create civil unions that automatically grant some of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that should be handled at a lawyers office, then I won't argue, but it should be open to any combination of people (groups, gays, adult incestuous relationships, heterosexual).

Personally, I feel I was married to Lani years before we bothered to let the government know.