But its mot just religion or tradition, see sure you could married but its the state that gives the benefits and privellages associated with it, so no matter what it has the right to regulate it to some extent and this is just one of the ways.

If you feel ridiculed that was certainly not my intent. If you have an objection to homosexual marriage that is not homophobia I welcome it. If you are only here to misrepresent my stance on this issue and my behavior on this forum then I can only say I think I have always displayed a willingness to discuss any view (except racism and antisemitism - I've put them all on ignore) and respectfully read any post whether it disagrees with me or not. I have even had my mind changed here. That's a claim that some here can't make.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Civil marriage is a civil construct that defines many property and inheritance rights. Originally it was a statement of ownership in a woman by a man but that's mostly over. In any case civil marriage is an entirely seperate entity from religious marriage and technically does not require love.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

It just seems like government should stay out of those matters. If it is the privileges associated with it then why should the government be in the business of discriminating when deciding who hands them out. Personally I think marriage should be be a personal thing separate from government and it should only hand out civil unions to everybody in order to avoid that sort of thing.

That doesn't seem to be the case or those pushing to limiting it to only certain lifestyles wouldn't be so worked up about the whole thing.

There is no such thing as the "sanctity" of a civil contract.
Religious marriage is an entirely different institution and allowing homosexuals to marry will not effect religious marriages in any way.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

I am not responsible for the ignorance of my opponents.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Why, that sounds downright liberal of ya... Social engineering, a hand for a large scoped federal government, mixing it up in the personal lives of citizens? Government "has a right"? Yeeesh... whenever I hear 'conservatives' argue this angle, I always think of Soviet Russia. Silly homosexuals - you must mate with the other sex, and have children. For the good of the Motherland, comrade.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Really? Traveler's comments make you think of Soviet Russia? Now that is certainly an interesting line of reasoning....

If you leave of the mayoral experience, this could be Hillary's description to a T.......

Oh, and add in leading a multi-million dollar healthcare-reform effort to spectacular failure.

Matt

Perhaps. I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

You still have to get a certificate for a civil union. Looking at the Vermont website, it really looks like the only difference is same sex couple can only obtain civil union certificates and hetro couples can only obtain marriage certificates. So, once again, what is the real difference? IMO, all that was done was to slap a different name on it - 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

I am in favor Homosexual 'Unions' that offer the same benefits as marriage does. That being said, I am 100% against homosexual 'Marriage'. Marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. We shouldn't change the meaning for anyone.

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

Civil marriage was once no more than a title of ownership of a woman by a man. Many times it has been the marriage of one wealthy and powerful man to many women. Not long ago it meant marriage between one man and one woman as long as they were the same color.
With such a checkered past I wonder why you bother with the seemingly empty gesture of keeping the name exclusively heterosexual when all the content the name refers to is already granted to everyone.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Well i wouldn't know seeing as like you i got married and don't know what a civil union constitutes. In our state i assume there's a huge difference in what a civil union constitutes to a marriage. However VT on the other hand probably doesn't, says a lot about Vermont really. Anyway i think the major chunk of difference comes in seperations; don't have to go through the whole tedious divorce crap and its easier just ti sever the union. Also as i understand it if a man and a woman get a civil union the woman can't change her name to Mrs and take the man's surname but what the heck does that matter as we only talk about it now because of gays. ivil unions is all basically for tax purposes and financial loopholes. Marriage gives that but for that you have to commit to love and all that; thus the state makes the assumption that (in theory anyway) you'll be together forever. That's why divorce is a lot more difficult.