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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6792)	7/16/2003 6:25:38 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

I agree with everything you said, except the "destructive" part. My comment was a terse one to X, who I knew could identify with what I was saying. Let me expand and clarify so I don't leave you with the wrong impression. Whatever words we use, I think the laws regarding marriage, as we now know it, to the extent that we retain any, should specify civil union/partnership and not marriage. People could form a civil union without being married in a religious tradition. They could be married in a religious tradition without qualifying as a civil union. People who are into marriage can do it and people who aren't shouldn't be treated any differently by the law. If those who are into marriage want to treat unmarrieds differently on a social basis, that's their business. My interest is in marital status distinguishing categories of citizenship. I think it's important that the law not treat married and non-married people any differently. Seems to me the best way to do this in the short term while allowing those sentimental or religious about marriage to do their thing is to distinguish between civil unions, which are recognized by law, and marriages, which are recognized by religious institutions and social norms. For most people, the two will irrevocably coincide. But they won't have to. My preference and long term objective would be to not have civil unions be imbedded in law but rather dealt with by contract. People could chose a standard contract or write their own. I realize that this is not politically doable, although I consider it the idea. I would settle for making a distinction between marriage and civil unions. I think that would take care of most people's concerns if they would just be rational and thoughtful about the issue. I am having some trouble with the word "benefits" as it is positioned in this discussion. I think that was a poor choice of words, a politically expedient term chosen by a gay rights group. All 1,049 items cited in the GAO report are not benefits, they are simply places where a distinction is made. Most of those distinctions are probably advantageous for the marrieds, but certainly not all.