5 ms·
Unsolicited feedback: The way you disagree is pretty disrespectful-- I've seen this in a few of your comments. Don't refer to people's arguments as "silly". C
by webwright 13y ago
Unsolicited feedback: The way you disagree is pretty disrespectful-- I've seen this in a few of your comments. Don't refer to people's arguments as "silly".
Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States.
It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16-- now it's largely not. I'd say that most proponents care more about the rights than the label.
- kevinpet 13y agoIt's irrelevant what's possible in 2/3 of the US. The California status quo until the court case, which Eich was implicitly trying to restore by supporting prop 8, was civil unions with identical treatment to marriage under state law except the name. That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.
- makomk 13y agoAside from the ethical issues, civil partnerships only had identical treatment to marriage under Californian state law. They weren't treated as marriages under federal law, or by many other countries and US states that recognised gay marriage. Likewise, Prop 8 meant that the marriages of gay couples from outside the state couldn't be recognised in California.