What if we determined 42 years ago that white people and black people could enter into a domestic partnership instead of being married? How retarded would the states look right now in the international community if they had?
but then only allow hetro couples to describe themselves as the traditional first class citizens
Society at large. The bigots that will say "Pffft. No church would ever marry you!"
Seriously, should we have had a different term for mixed-race marriages too?
And for anybody arguing that gay people who use words like "marriage" to describe their relationships or "husband" to describe their partners aren't corrected?
A lot of people here apparently don't understand that in order to be separate but equal, it has to be separate. The new proposition is doing explicitly the opposite of that.If "marriage" is separate and only granted to religious people, then it is indeed separate.
A lot of people here apparently don't understand that in order to be separate but equal, it has to be separate. The new proposition is doing explicitly the opposite of that.
Close up: male and female hands, with wedding rings, clutched lovingly but with an obvious tension.
Voice over: After California defended marriage from the homosexual agenda they've revealed their true goal: eradicating marriage.
Fade to concerned looking older couple (ideally non-white): We've been married for 40 years, and now the homosexual activists want to take that away from us. Please, save our marriage and yours. Vote no on Proposition X
Second class citizen... separate class of schools for black and white people... equality in name only... throwing gay people a bone... appeasement of bigotry and hatred...
I don't care about the word. The rights are what matters. And if I can get the rights by ceding the word "marriage" to religion, that's fine with me
It conveys meaning and tradition that some of us would like to be able to keep without being part of a religion.
Of course it does. This law makes it so my marriage wouldn't be recognized
It does so to the exclusion of millions of peopleWhich is why a change is needed to allow all couples to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.
It does so to the exclusion of millions of people
Do you not understand that this proposal would NOT allow everyone to marry, it would allow the religious to marry and the rest of us to "civilly unite" or some second class term.
You seem like the one who genuinely doesn't get it. It's simple - allow everyone to marry under the current law.
Why are you against that?
Flunkie has been rude throughout the entire post.
« Older What the Hashtag?!... | Vizualizations and infographic... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt