Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not very cost effective or efficient as the missed changes will have to either require court rulings or more changes in legislation as those impacted discover they are impacted.
As if that's any different than what we're going through now with the gay community. If we're going to be fair, the only reasonable government solution must apply to any type relationship desired, in any quantity or combination. It may not
be practical, but it isn't fair either to cater to a limited group of people either just because they're the ones complaining. Years from now (or sooner) you'll have another bunch start whining about the same thing and do it all over again. Illegal aliens are at it now.
citizens. They function like them, work like them, live like them, etc., just like a same-sex partner is a spouse
, so they argue what the difference really is and we start having to redefine "citizen". Despite being defined clearly, it's still
questioned. So no, I don't buy the argument that the problem is an unclear definition. We're talking about fringe groups asking for special recognition under the guise of civil/human rights. Maybe had we not already had a genuine civil rights movement...
At the end of the day, we've got 3 choices--band aid for gays, make civil unions/marriage encompassing of any desired relationship, or simply keep the traditional man-woman marriage as is. Personally, I don't have a problem with the last option.