lmwilker,

"I was "Civilly Unioned" (see how silly that sounds) with my husband in 1982. We were married without a religious ceremony in front of a Justice of the Peace who united us in marriage. I have been married to my husband for more than 26 years. I am way more married to him than the millions of people who have stood before a Priest or a preacher to be married and who later contracted a civil divorce, very few of whom, I am willing to bet, went back to their Priest or preacher and sought a religious divorce."

Indeed I do see how silly that sounds...HOWEVER, you are trying to take a term that has stood for a religious ceremony LONG before it was recognized by our government and used for legal purposes. I submit you will not be able to take this term away from those who's religion recognizes this term accordingly.

I further submit that those who refuse to accept the civil union term do so to force this redefinition of the term to spite those who define it in religious terms. An additional possibility is the future chance of forcing those same religious organizations to marry homosexuals even though their religion forbids it.

Why is it so concerning that the Mormon church, a tax free organization, got involved in this and the fact the Californians Against Hate, another organization organized as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code isn't a concern?

Just curious.

"Then, I suppose the solution is this: a constitutional amendment that bans the use of the word "marriage" from any couple who has not had a 100% religiously-sanctioned ceremony. Anyone who's been united by a JP, by a minister not of their faith, by a captain at sea, or by a civil judge, is not "married." "Marriage" is a word that can solely be applied to a religious ceremony. If only you'd spoken up last fall, you'd have saved those poor Mormons all that money!"

OR...for LEGAL purposes, anyone who has had a civil union OR are married can be referred to as civil unions. I thought it was a fairly simple solution.

"Except ... it's not really about a word at all. It's about denying a minority group of people civil rights because another minority group disapproves of their lifestyle."

No, it's abour usurping a KNOWN religious definition in order to force acceptance of a particular lifestyle. IF, legally speaking, ALL marriages are called Civil Unions, then WHAT is the problem? Those who consider themselves married can refer to themselves as such and those who are civilly unionized can refer to themselves as such...but BOTH will be considered Civil Unions under the law.

Now if it ISN'T the definition of the word that's the problem, WHY is this solution so aborhant to you???

PSMarc93:

"Let's get this myth out of the way right now. Civil Unions are unable to cover ALL the rights afforded to a married couple. There is no law that says "civil unions are equal to marriage." Example: inheritance. In a marriage, property goes to the surviving spouse. The cases a court has overturned that are very rare. Civil unions demand that property goes to the suviving partner -- guess how many times in California alone a family has overtuned the civil union's inhereitance to take over the property of a gay son or lesbian daughter??? Ready??? 100%. EVERY time a family of a partner in a civil union sought to overturn inheritance, they won. Marriage and civil unions are not equal."

UNLESS Civil Unions were EQUATED with marriage under the law...THEN Civil Unions would cover ALL the rights affored married couples...PARTICULARLY if it was a FEDERAL law!

is STILL President for another 55 days!

:-)

CHEERS!

Apparently a LOT of people who are stocking up on guns, buying easily stored long-term food and are otherwise NOT spending money.

Yeah, I think there are a LOT of people who are afraid...and may STAY that way for at least 4 years!

Torture is ONLY a bad thing when Republicans do it, apparently.

So much for honesty and integrity in the Senate.

considering the shoe thrower would have been jailed if he had done that to Saddam during his regime.

I thought President Bush showed a lot of class in saying that this is what you get when you have a Democracy. Desenting opinions are ALLOWED in Democracies.

Ah well...maybe someday that shoe thrower will realized what he now has...and will appreciate it.

Sorry about the loss of your nephew.

I do wonder, however, if your nephew would be thinking along those lines.

IS it OK to assault the US president?

It appears Folger is correct in that many here have no problem with this.

So...does this mean if someone here disagrees with Obama over the next four years, THEY can throw a shoe at him and be praised for voicing their dissent as well?

If people try to fling shoes at Bush when he leaves the White House, there MAY be those who do the same to Obama just before he enters the White House!

Why not just enjoy the day and leave it at that?