[gawd]

The wisest course, IMO, would be to strip the term "marriage" completely out the legal code and replace it with a term like "civil union" or "joint household agreement."
Whether homosexuals in such a shared household should be considered married, should be left to individual belief and societal consensus

bravo, you've said it better than I could. I agree.

[little jeremiah]

The thing is that homosexuals already can make any kind of legal contracts they want regarding inheritance, hospital visitation, final directives (the documents authorizing selected people to make medical decisions in the event of one's incapitation) and so on.

The reason homosexuals want to have "gay" marriage is best stated by one of their own:

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994) :

."A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."


In other words, they have as their stated goal to dismantle the natural family and marriage.

In case one of you may say, well, that's just one homosexual, not all of them. My rebuttal: He is a noted spokesman for the homosexual activist elite, there are numerous others that have said virtually the same thing (I can paste them here too if you want). And if he's an extremist, it's funny I don't hear a bunch of homosexuals denouncing him or his views.