re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Then i quite disagree with that provision. That is not in the best interests of the children, at all. If the statute were changed to be more equitable, would your position change?

Ace, this is starting to make me sad, because you’re disregarding the very real legal disabilities of same-sex partnerships, and treating them like incidentals.

Yes, if you could deliver on the actual meat of marriage equality—partnerships with all the legal state and federal privileges of marriage—sure, I could live with calling those things marriages only colloquially, and having the state reserve the special word ‘marriage’ for heterosexual couples. I’d think it was stupid as hell, but I’d do it.

But you’re talking as though the real point here is whether such things get called marriages or not, and not whether equality under the law is available.

Believe me. The people who are pouring money and passion into preventing same-sex marriage, as political movement, are not in it to protect the word ‘marriage’. They are in it to prevent the state and nation from recognizing gay relationships as equal under the law.

You may be able to prove that there are special reasons that a person can want ‘civil unions’ instead of ‘gay marriages’ without being a bigot, but you’re not going to be able to disprove what I said above.

And so, when we go another round of “Well, what if they got absolute equality under the law? Would they be willing to give up on my special word THEN?” I get tired, and sort of impatient.