[vrwc1]

No, if the State has no power to define a contract as a "marriage", then (by definition) no "partnership" could be legally required to be respected as a Marriage. Churches and Businesses could choose to recognize whichever "partnership contracts" they pleased, and not others, as the terms of a Private Contract are binding upon the Parties themselves, not parties external to the contract. State Law, on the other hand, is binding on Parties external to the contract, which is exactly why we are in this mess.

You're dreaming if you don't think that eventually state law would require all businesses to recognize and treat all "partnership contracts" equally, effectively creating homosexual marriage!

[bc2]

Maybe your efforts would be better spent changing the laws that say you are no longer free to hire and fire, or rent property, to whomever you want.

You would be free to not hire gay people, black people, Irish, Jews, or anyone else you didn't like.

Then, if an insurance company didn't want to give a policy to 2 gay men, they wouldn't be forced to by a law.

I thought this was a free country? Am I wrong?

[gridlock]

If everyone has a "partnership contract" that must be treated equally outside of a "church", you have effectively conferred all rights of "married" heterosexuals on homosexuals as well - i.e. you have created homosexual marriage. Don't try to deny it - it is as plain as day!

No, what you have created is homosexual civil union, not homosexual marriage. There is a difference, you know.

For one thing, we've had homosexual civil union for some time in this country.