4 ms·
Well, no, that's the point. There are civil unions, and there are marriages - and if it was simply about "rights" and "benefits", then people wouldn't give a c
by victorhooi 13y ago
Well, no, that's the point.
There are civil unions, and there are marriages - and if it was simply about "rights" and "benefits", then people wouldn't give a c*ap which group they were in.
However, even though they have civil unions (in many countries/states), they also want to redefined marriage.
I'm not saying that's wrong or right - that's an argument I won't go into here.
However, to try to pretend that this is anything but redefining something is pretty deceptive.
Maybe they'll win, and we will redefine marriage. Who knows.
- mkr-hn 13y agoYou keep saying this throughout the thread. You are misinformed. Marriage and civil unions are legally different things with different rights, responsibilities, and scope.
- intslack 13y agoThey are legally the same in Connecticut and other states. Not all, but in some. But it's not equal in the "institutional" sense so we should just redefine marriage in states instead of building civil unions with the same framework as marriages and have two seperate but equal legal frameworks.
- mkr-hn 13y agoFortunately, momentum is building for marriage equality here in Georgia. Maybe this state isn't so bad after all. The editor of the local small town paper even came out in support.