Quote:
Quote:
Let me say again, homosexuals can get married now and they will always be able to. They can love each other and be responsible for each other just fine without government recognition.
they won't be able to if that amendment gets passed, correct?
|
They will be able to marry just as they can now, unless you're strictly talking about the Justice of the Peace marriages. The government can't touch the churches, so gay people can still marry in a church, but if the amendment gets passed, they won't be able to get a certificate from the government signifying that the state recognizes their marriage. JP's are representatives of the state; you vote them into office.
I think we may have misunderstood each other on the responsibility issue. I was taking "being responsible for one another" to mean taking care of and loving each other, such as a husband and wife do when raising a family. I meant nothing legal about it. You raise a good point with all the problems that recognition could solve, I think it would create even more at the same time.
@perfect fat: I didn't get anything that was remotely anti-gay-adoption out of Chardish's post. Also, do you consider me a bigot because I completely agree with Chardish? I'm interested to hear your answer...
@alextrebek: There are many gay people who could be excellent parents, and I have no problem with gay adoptions because that can be, and is, quite regulated by the adoption companies themselves and won't get out of hand. Adoption's great, and you don't need a marriage certificate to do it. Benefits for child-rearing could be extended to "couples who adopt", and not necessarily "married people", if that would suffice.
Also, of course being gay doesn't make you bad, but just because you're not doing something wrong doesn't mean you should be given the same legal rights as certain others.
--Guido
http://andy.mikee385.com/