On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:36:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:05:40 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:58:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?

Those people could be considered 'unionized'. Works for me.

I prefer the idea of "partnership". That is closer to the relationship
in business law. They have already embraced the word.

Why change the terminology from 'civil union' to 'partnership'?
Perhaps there's a legal rationale for doing so.



In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.

Amen.

I'd still consider giving GLBT's a tax break for not having kids.

Actually it works the other way. The government encourages kids with
tax breaks.

I know how it works. But the Glibitsers deserve something for *not*
procreating.