[R. Scott]

There is no legal reason to deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious description of "marriage".

There is also no morale reason to deny two homosexuals the responsibility concurrent with legal marriage. Why should they be denied the benefits of divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other restraints imposed on heterosexuals?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"..There is also no morale reason to deny two homosexuals the responsibility 
concurrent with legal marriage. Why should they be denied the benefits of 
divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other 
restraints imposed on heterosexuals?.."

As always, equal means equal. If any two people are permitted the benefit
of a legal "marriage", they not only enjoy the benefits, but also the pitfalls
of that same legal relationship.

And that, is the point. Anything less than legally deeming it a marriage, would
insinuate a "special" privilege. The gay community does not want "special"
privileges, all they want are the same treatment under law, for the same
commitment they make to one another.

 

[pinz-n-needlez]

>>Why should they be denied the benefits of divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other restraints imposed on heterosexuals?>>

And why should trial lawyers be denied all of the monetary fallout from arguing in court the above details surrounding the dissolution of such marriages?

I think this movement is as much about full employment of lawyers as it is about undersutting traditional conventions in our society.

Pinz