Originally Posted by kerryann
No he said earlier to let them be married but have a different process and a different form of union like a domestic partnership for homosexuals and a "marriage" for heterosexuals. I said either make it one process or make it no process. Making it two different processes will create more costs. If we let the government do anything there is going to a high amount costs involved.
are you referring to this: ?
Originally Posted by L4CX
There is a pretty large group of people that have an issue with it being called Marriage. Whether they are believers or not, they still are citizens of the united states. Their opinion is no less important then the Homosexual side's opinion. Most of us are willing to re-name our governmental definition to something different.
What effect will it have on any of us if we call it something different? Why does it have to be called a marriage? Nobody has answered that question. Just sarcastically blew it off as us being bigots. Personally, I think it's a great compromise. It would appear to be right in the middle of the issue for both sides. I think if we can make both sides happy, it's a win-win instead of having someone loose.
I still don't see where he suggests a different process for them.... just that they don't have the same name for their partnership as a heterosexual marriage... what did I miss?