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 (72203)	8/11/2003 10:49:06 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It would allowed gays and lesbians to obtain a civil union license, to be "civil unionized" before a judge or in a religious setting, and thereby obtain the 400 or so state benefits of marriage." I have been supporting the idea of civil union...maybe for the wrong reasons. I figure gays are already living in unions, have been for a long time and that society has already given them a status as a sub-group informally. By recognizing civil unions as a legitimate status it gives the state recourse to sort out the kind of litigation that inevitably comes with long term relations. It also gives society a method to keep data and make educated comments about what "is" is. So, what's wrong with my reasoning? Well one problem that I see with it is that it assumes that "civil union" is not a code word that makes up part of the veil that is obscurring political agendas. Part of the fear, the hetero-sexual community has with legitimizing things in this area is that it is a gate keeper step to impacting institutions accross the board. For example: It is predicatable that educational systems would be required to stop indoctrinating youth to believe that a healthy system is one founded on family values.