[October's Autumn]

Domestic partners should be an issue of the state: You sign some papers, the state (ie govenrment) recongizes your commitment to one another and you get all the rights and responsibilities that comes in this country with that commitment. This is something that happens between two consenting adults. And from statistical analysis if we really want to protect this insitution all people should have to be 25 before being able to participate in this union as for some reason that is the magic age in which the number of divorces drops.

Marriage should be an issue for religious institutions. If the particular religious institution you belong to doesn't want to marry people of the same gender or one of whom has had gender reassignment they don't have to. But if the institution you belong to chooses to marry two consenting adults who are of the same gender or one of whom has had gender reassignment then they can.

Problem solved

The irony of course is the religious institutions are recognizing the marriage of same sex couples and gender reassigned people before the state. Well, for a change Judaism and Christianity are being the headlights and not the tail lights, at least in some cases!

Oh, I also think civil unions should extend to non-sexual relationships. When I say this I tell the story of two single sisters who purchased a house together. I think they should be able to register as domestic partners. This way they have legal protections if one of them should become disabled and need the other one to care for her. It also offers other protections. I also tell of the widowed daughter and her widower father who were raising the son/grandson together who should be given the same protection and rights, should they so choose.

[October's Autumn]

Jack Twist, on Feb 5 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

No, there is no outcry and no ballot initiatives to prohibit cohabitation of straights prior to marriage or anything else to uphold "traditional" marriage other than anti-gay measures.

You have correctly seen the truth. If people were really interested in protecting "traditional" marriage people wouldn't be allowed to get married until they are 25, wouldn't be allowed to live together until after marriage, pre-marital sex would be outlawed, wouldn't be able to have children until they had been married for x amount of years. All these things serve as protections against divorce. Of course, there is a misnomer that divorce is bad. Yes, it is painful and difficult. However, it is a sign of a healthy society. In the 50's and previous when we saw such a low divorce rate we saw people in abusive relationships, staying with alcohol addicted partners, etc. etc.

Quote

What I do pick up is that some people think gay or lesbian sex is icky.

LOL. That is true. But if people think about they will realize that in description all things sex related (except maybe holding hands) is icky. Sticking your tongue in someone else's mouth?!?!? YUCK! And I won't even get into descriptions of heterosexual sex. EWWW! Okay, so I love having sex with my husband but in a verbal description of it -- GROSS! So the reality is straight sex is icky, too. It is just the nature of private things, I guess. Wasn't meant for words

Quote

What do we ask of a couple that wants marriage in the church - that they make a commitment of life long faithfulness. If that commitment is there, what else matters, including the genders of the couple?

Exactly.

[October's Autumn]

Quote

The issue of "gay marriage" vs "civil union" issue

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. It is a marriage so call it a marriage. Heck my husband and I were married before we were legally married.