You are very wrong about gays in a civil union enjoying equal benefits to a married couple. Just one of many examples – a gay couple in a civil union cannot benefit from the reduced tax rates of a Federal joint tax return.

Since your opposition to gay marriage is “religious”, do you feel just as strongly that Red Lobster and such places that serve shrimp and other shellfish should be denied a business license? Shellfish consumption is condemned as an abomination. Where are you on that since your sense of justice and equity is based on your religious beliefs?

btw – I wouldn’t want to marry my partner if it were legal but I think those who want to marry are entitled to that right just like any straight couple is entitled to do so.

At least you have your neighboring States putting some peer pressure on Rhode Island. We’re having a heck of a time down here. MD gets close to legalizing same sex marriage but never quite gets there. DC is in a battle to simply recognize same sex marriages performed in other States. VA – forget it.

I think the movement is gaining momentum, though.

Now, to Lucie. I’m getting that the thrust of your position is that marriage should be a special arrangement between a man and a woman. I’ll assume you mean one man and one woman…or we could check into polygamy (contractual and unrecognized) and polyamory (non-contractual).

I agree that the “M” word has some power within it and I think that may be a huge driver to the movement. However, there are some contractual benefits to marriage that don’t exist even within the context of a civil union. Being a real estate guy, I know that home ownership or the ownership of any real estate is recognized differently between a “husband/wife” relationship (i.e., married couple) and others who are not married, whether it is a parent and child or business partners or good friends.

There are also inheritance issues and, since we know most marriages end in divorce, there are also property and financial issues involved in the relationship/marriage. And that’s before we start talking about children.

The bottom line is that marriage is really more than “a word” (otherwise I would still be “living in sin” with my wife…trust me on this).

Susan, I am no religious zealot, but the religious and moral voice is NOT the minority; the homosexual lobby is most definitely the minority. It just sounds loud.

There has to be a point at which what is legal and what is religious is divided and separated. Multi-marriage is civil. As you point out, it is not religious. Historically, the union between one man and one woman is marriage, with its foundation solidly religious. There is no debate. The problem is the State (again, any secular government, not RI) copped the term for the religious sacrament and applied it to what the State can do – recognize the legally binding contract between the man and woman. I have a civil union with my second husband. I have no religious blessing, benefit, or even recognition of that second union, just the civil legal bennies.

There is nothing unusual about reserving a word and its specific meaning and symbolism for use by a particular group, to the exclusion of those outside the group. Need a couple of examples? How about the “N” word? Few would argue that Blacks don’t “own” that word, to the exclusion of non-Blacks. More to the point of this topic, how about “queer”? That word originally meant odd and quirky. As a heterosexual, even using that word in its proper original definition would now be seen as a homosexual slur. It’s definition and meaning has been twisted into something else, and is now “owned” by homosexuals, to the exclusion of heterosexuals. Would you disagree with either of those examples?

Well, for millions of religious heterosexuals (religious – not just Catholic), marriage is their “N” word, their “queer” – it has a specific meaning and symbolism and can’t be diluted or distorted into something it isn’t by those outside the the group.

Call the union of two people of the same sex something ELSE, and there would be no opposition, I can practically guarantee it.

If it was really only about legal rights and equality under the law, homosexuals would rally around civil union – and face no opposition! But the truth is, homosexuals want the universal social acceptance and “respectability” that comes with the powerful word marriage. THAT is philosophical, and you can’t legislate that.

Reminds me of Rep. Gordon Fox’s comment a couple of years ago: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Gay marriages? Sure. I’m with your “to each his (or her) own.”

Best of luck turning things around in Little Rhodey. We got it SUPER bad here in Michigan, and just received another blow – GM is closing 1,100 plants in this state – a loss of over 40,000 jobs. Sigh, …

The Old Silly from Free Spirit Blog

What I do not understand is why the homosexual lobby is not satisfied with equal rights under the law; why do they insist on twisting the definition of a word that has great significance and symbolism to a large group of people?

Under the law, I have the same equal rights as a man. However, nothing the State legislates will ever make me a man. I am different. Redefining “man” to accommodate women under the law is ludicrous, right? I have to “settle” for different but equal under the law.

If two homosexuals who want to commit to each other in an exclusive relationship can have that contract legally recognized so they can own property together, have legal rights as next of kin, and enjoy the many tax benefits extended to the legally recognized union of heterosexual pairs, why isn’t that good enough?

I think the State should abolish all reference to “marriage” in all laws and documents, and call the contracts between two people that the State is authorized to legally recognize and legally dissolve “civil union.” Leave “marriage” to the religious heterosexuals for whom that word has such important historical, traditional, and symbolic meaning.

Jenn? The reason a union in which either party is “mentally defective” is null and void is that such a person is incapable of entering into a legally binding, valid contract. Again, love ain’t got nuthin’ to do with nuthin’ when it comes to the State. The State’s only interest is the contract.