Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
I believe in civil unions, For EVERYONE.
Marriage is a religous act, and I believe in the seperation of Church and State. Simple solution, make everyone get Civil Union, and leave marriage upto the church.
Oh wait, that makes too much sense.
-
I think gays should get married, as long as both women are HOT!
>Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
I'm sure that's true. It's also true that most people that are opposed to "gay marriage" are so opposed for religious reasons. Those that are in favor of the concept of gay marriage (call it a civil union or whatever) are not interested in barging into your local parish and demanding that God recognize their vows, nor are they interested in destroying "family values". The gay community just wants the same legal status as a heterosexual couple when it comes to patient's rights, wills, etc. The fact is that gay couples already have weddings and adopt children, and have done so long before any city or state started giving them marriage licenses. This "gay marriage" debate has nothing to do with that. This is all about the special secular legal status that a married couple gets if they're one male and one female, but no other combination thereof.
The only way to give them this legal status and still satisfy the religious folks (who are convinced that a homosexual couple getting married somehow affects them in a negative way, but won't share the mechanism) is to seperate the notion of religious marriage from that of secular marriage.
For once in his life, I agree with president Bush about something. Civil Unions are a good idea. I can't imagine why he was trying to ammend the constitution if that's really what he wants.
That said, I don't think the notions of two "seperate but equal" legal statuses for the same thing is a good thing either. Let's define "marriage" in the churches and define "civil unions" in the legislature. I'm aware that means scrapping the word "marriage" from the law books, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps we can clean up the alimony laws while we're at it to get rid of this pre-nup bullshit.
BTW. I don't speak for the gay community... I'm a heterosexual that believes in equal rights for all.