You started 6 paragraphs with that phrase. That's a lot of hate.
I have not used the word hate in any of my previous posts on this topic. Do not insinuate that there is any hatred in my disscusions. An objection is not hatred.
In this topic, the contract is "marriage". All that comply to it's contract; all that are willing to vow to remain together as a couple, deserve the same treatment under law.,
Contracts other than marriage are available to solve the problem of two people entering into a partnership. Reciprocal personal sevice contracts, powers of attorney, incorporation, limited partnerships,equal partnerships, asset distribution,etc. Marriage is not the only way to solve what we would be led to believe are insurmountable problems created by what in my opinion is a behavior. If rights, status or privilege are to be granted based on behavior then it is only reasonable to verify said behavior.
Definition from FindLaw
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=lawcrawler.findlaw.com&topic=63/634e8e4d4e93fc49502a0d4ec5df4166
marriage
['mar-ij]
1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law (see also divorce)
2: the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created
Your unabashed and overly passionate interest in having two people
disclose exactly what it is they do behind their closed doors, is near
amazing in this type of forum.
If "rights, status or privilege are to be granted based on behavior",
then in the instance of "marriage" the only "behavior" qualifier can
and should be the willingness to dedicate one's life to one other
individual and to do so with a bond that exceeds all others in law.
It is done with dignity, honor and respect for one another, and is a
life-long contract.
How many heterosexual couples live up to that pledge? The statistics
worsen each year. Divorce is easy, too easy. And the honor and respect
of being married, that once was cherished among those of us that married,
has dwindled to be simply a passing fancy; something attributed to
our older generation.
If the concept of marriage has gotten that bad among the heterosexual
community at large, how then can homosexuals wishing to make
the same pledge, be bad?
As I stated on other threads each time this topic has been debated,
we have many, many clients, associates, and friends that have been
living together for well over 20 years in homosexual relationships. Their
bonding without benefit of a marriage contract has outlasted that of
so many other heterosexuals that have garnered the marriage contract.
There is an all-encompassing debacle of "rights" associated with
the marriage contract. "Next of kin" rights, spousal rights, the right
to make life and death choices abound. And along with the "rights"
are the many other contracts whose provisions apply only to those
that are married, or the partner in marriage. Insurance contracts,
deeds, joint contracts.. All contracts in one way or another, including
the legal rights in court actions, have some exception or exemption for
an individual that's been bonded in marriage.
When that is the case; when there are so many legal issues that
surround the act of marriage, then that marriage decree can not
and should not, be limited to any select few, if based on prejudicial
issues. We do not [legally] judge a person's worth by ethnic, color,
heritage or sexuality. We afford the same legal rights to all.
Yes, that is part of our Constitution.