Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (21553)	8/12/2001 11:47:38 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

First, this is the post, from Nadine Carroll, that I recommended (and approved off): Gay couples are not married in the eyes of the Church, or of most religions, but their status in the eyes of the law is the question here. I have often thought that it would be best to sidestep the question of marriage, and concentrate on the ability to legally declare another person a partner in his/her household. The relationship to this person might or might not have a sexual component; it doesn't matter. What matters is that people could legally form a household with another person and grant that person legal rights in inheritance and medical decisions that have been traditionally associated with marriage. Many gay people, who feel strongly that they have a right to marry, will not be happy with this half-a-loaf of civil union, but I think most people in this county could get used to the idea. Particularly if you trot out some non-controversial examples, such as a pair of childless widows who've been best friends all their life, and want to look after each other in old age. So, under the recommended scheme, your problem is taken care of. Second, there is no reason to call that "marriage".......