You've got nothing because you're not going to get anything. CfA, as noted weeeelllllll before this latest kerfluffle came along, is careful to ensure that they do not subject themselves to these frivolous (and 99% of them ARE frivolous) suits just so that some idiotic activist organization can't come along and sue them out of existence, which you no doubt would love to do.
Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage. All I'm saying is that civil unions is not a legitimate solution. If they deserve equal rights, they deserve marriage as defined by government. If they do not deserve equal rights, then they deserve no recognition for their living situation. A right either exists or it doesn't.
Last edited by m00; 08-08-2012 at 12:40 AM.
Let me break it down so maybe you'll understand: who has the right to marry someone of the same sex, gays or heterosexuals?
I am not judging the merits of whether or not the specific rights conferred by marriage laws ought to be extended to homosexual couples
I am just saying that civil unions make no sense, because either marriage laws either ought to cover gays, or ought to not cover gays. I don't see a moral argument for a middle ground.
I don't know how I can be more clear on this.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|