« SB1000: Rally Reminder; Targets of Advocacy | Main | Rove's Omissions and the Missing Source »

July 22, 2005

Comments

Mike Meier

People,
I voted against same sex marriage,I was a supporter of SB1000 until I read the first section. "Civil Unions for those of the same sex", that is not what we said in our vote against same sex mariage. We would support civil unions for all people,not just one group. Of all groups you should be the first to see that this would not be constitutional.That is all I have to say.
Mike

torridjoe

The vote was against same sex marriage; this isn't same sex marriage. What's your issue? There's clearly no constitutional problem--the amendment was designed specifically to only affect marriages, and the proponents of the amendment even SUGGESTED supporters seek civil unions.

I don't know what you mean by "all groups," since I'm not gay. I'm just for equal rights for everyone as the constitution intended.

Ronald Rutherford

I may be wrong but I think Mike wants civil unions for any couple that so wants.
Maybe a hetero couple does not want the labeling of "marriage" or the extra social costs of marriage and thusly a civil union is more appropriate.
Instead of the courts and laws dictating what is a Marriage, couples could opt for a buffett type contract.

torridjoe

I want civil unions for any adult couple that so wants one, too. Hets will opt for marriage, since they offer more than civil unions; gays apparently must content themselves with only the unions, for now. What's the problem?

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad