Posted on 09/04/2004 10:32:00 AM PDT by wagglebee
The question is whether the people and their elected representatives will get to decide whether or not to recognize 'some sort of gay union', or if recognition will be imposed upon them by the courts.
Hopefully it will ultimately be the former, and as such the gay community and their allies would just have to accept it that many, or probabably even most states would not grant their unions any legal status. But they could take comfort in knowing they could move to the Northeast, or West Coast where majority sentiment may be on their side.
Unfortunately the Church is pretty bad on immigration as a general rule, both in the US and Europe. Though, with Europe it is even harder to understand considering that the largest source of immigrants are Muslim and would not hesitate to impose their beliefs on the dwindling post-Christian native populations once they have the numbers to do so.
Since my posts #11 and #15, I have learned that a former partner of an old gay friend of mine recently suicided. (My friend was very distressed even though he was no longer in touch with the unfortunate fellow, whom I never met.) So while I might contest some of your numbers, MegaSilver, your points are well-taken.
Yet, I still am reluctant to condemn my gay friends who are in long-term stable monogamous relationships. I feel a little like Huck Finn, who decides not to turn in his friend Jim, a runaway slave, even if it means going to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.