If the purpose of civil unions is to confer most of the benefits of marriage, while preserving marriage for a man and a woman, then I don’t see how they can limit civil unions to gays.
Why not allow civil unions for widow sisters who look out after each other?
Why not a group of three anything who want to make a civil union pack and mutually commit to care for each other?
As long as legal enforceability comes with the package and they leave marriage alone, I have no problem with it.
I say let the benefits of marriage stay with the married, (Man+Woman), that is where it belongs. PERIOD.
Does a citizen have the right to the benefit of Secret Service protection.
Because that's NOT the purpose of "civil unions" -- the purpose is coerced acceptance of homosexual practices and all the associated deviancies.
“Why not allow civil unions for widow sisters who look out after each other?
Why not a group of three anything who want to make a civil union pack and mutually commit to care for each other?”
Thank you, I have been saying this for years! There is no earthly reason why any two (or more) people shouldn’t be able to enter into a contract whereby they accept each other as “next of kin” or dependents, kind of like adopting each other as family. That is only reasonable, as there are many elderly people who are widowed and depend on their friends as much as their own relatives, and a myriad of other situations I can think of where any person might want any other human in their lives to be the ones to be at their bedside when they become ill or make decisions for them should they become incapacitated, and any adult should be able to choose and designate that person, be it their cousin, roommate, best friend, or whomever. And if they are willing to pay the premiums, any adult should be able to claim said person as a dependent on their insurance policies. Just my .02, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.