Ok, I will. This is what you wrote:
There were two ladies there, probably in their 60’s, age wise. I was told they were a “couple” who had been together since their mid-20’s.
They were very nice women. Friendly & engaging. They did nothing in public anyone would have to hide their children from seeing. Two grandmotherly types....
While I imagine they are both gone now, given their ages, there WILL be a case like this that finds its way into the judicial system. And the question will be simple:
“Why were these two people prevented from forming a legally recognized household, that would have afforded them the ability to have their household protected by the same laws that protect ALL households? Why would a surviving partner not be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, for example, after many decades of having a household?”
If we are going to give these rights and priviledges to two grandmotherly women who have lived together for 20 years, then what is the rationale for denying these rights and priviledges to EVERYONE who has shared a house for 20 years? Why would we deny this benefit to sisters who live together, or brothers who live together, or a Father and Daughter who live together or a mother and son?
It seems to me that the qualifier for your scenario is that as long as these people are not closely related and as long as they have engaged in sodomistic behavior for a period of time, then they should therefore qualify for all the benefits of marriage and be entitled to share in social security death benefits.
I'm hoping you simply have not thought through your position. However it sounds to me like you have given up the traditional marriage fight and have surrendered to the enemy.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Furthermore, any argument for “civil union” is an argument for the demise of marriage. As wagglebee has carefully pointed out “marriage” has been a governmental issue for centuries and centuries. Of course it is: it is the only safe and effective way to care for the next generation.
Civil union cheapens the protections given to potentially child-rearing couples by ignoring the state’s legitimate interest in the next generation.
In all other cases, there is nothing preventing homosexuals from signing contracts and drawing up wills.
You know, sometimes on controversial issues here on FR, we sometimes resort to the very human thing of shooting from the hip, name-calling, and all. I know. I have probably done it myself, much to my regret. I sincerely appreciate the passionate, yet dignified way that you state your thoughts, without personal amimus. We all care about this deeply; it’s just that some of us are approaching things from other angles.
I have thought about ALL those possibilities that you mentioned. And probably a few that you didn’t.
Here is what I am looking at these days. I am trying to force myself to read some of the arguments that are being made in court, both IN favor and AGAINST in the Prop 8 case in CA, for example. I have a ways to go before the cases brought in other state. I started with CA because Ted Olson is a party to this and he used to be on our side. These are long, boring legal arguments, but I am doing my best to get through them.
I believe it is important to know upon what grounds these new “rights” are being argued and its what I am trying to do. That is the only way, I believe, that we are going to be able to come up with defending our traditional position.
To illustrate this:
Just a “for instance” here is this argument: The notion that gay couples should have to go to the expense of legal documents to secure rights that others already have, is proof of the violation of the equal protection clause. That is one of their claims. I continue to read more of this stuff and promise to report what I find. You can’t fight the other side, unless you know their game plan. It’s the reason why everyone else is watching Hannity, etc. that I make sure to roll over to MSLSD to see what those kooks are saying.
So that is what I am doing now.