San Francisco's First Gay Marriage

[mrmnp]

I may have finally learned what Jeepz has been trying to teach me by his persuasive posts, a form of "civil union" might be the answer to the now very hot political and religious debate in the United States.

I am also posting this reply in the companion thread on same-sex mariage as it is relevent there as well.

To satisfy the political and civil rights objections to the status of the marriage law currently in effect in all united states other that Massachusetts, as Jeepz has suggested, a term must be selected to describe a "union" between two people of any gender recognized by law. He suggests "civil union", but would you then describe yourself as "unionized". Gays appropriated their descriptive word, perhaps the labor unions could live with it. Better we come up with a more salubrious term to describe those persons who choose to have their union recognized by the law. with all the attendent benefits flowing therefrom.

The term "marriage" is used more than a thousand times in the current laws and a rational and practical person would say use that word, but I am sure dear Jeepz would say that is not the best "political" approach. So I propose the following, which I presuppose falls in line with Jeepz's point of view.

Change the present law simply by a one line definition change ie.

"FIRSTLY: Henceforth, the word mariage is stricken from all existing laws presently in force and the word "significant other" (or your choice of words) be substituted therefore, forthwith.

SECONDLY: All persons making proper application for "significant other" status and havining complied with all the requirements prescribed herein, shall be so included."

Under this plan, Churches can continue using the word "marriage" to decribe their joing ceremonies and same-sex couples can still have their "significant other" status recognized by the church of their choice.

While this "solution" to the same-sex dispute is efficatious, legal and just, it will not be possible until the majority recognizes they are losing nothing, that church dogma has no place in the law of the land and that same-sex couples have the right to equality under the law.