Well that's just it, I worry that the current set of tactics will take them longer to get them their
rights than the compromise method.
Understand, I'm with you on the essentials on this. I just fear backlash and resentment could undermine
the progress that's been made.
I also think that the "civil unions for everybody" approach might help guarantee better rights not just for homosexual couples, but for everyone. If
we believe in the separation of church and state, then lets DO exactly that! And not have the government defining "marriage". Wouldn't the
precedent set by that kind of approach be applicable to other aspects of the law?
The government that governs least governs best, as one of the Founding Fathers put it. And I think there's an opportunity to reduce the governments
intrusiveness into our social affairs here that's being missed.
rights than the compromise method.
Understand, I'm with you on the essentials on this. I just fear backlash and resentment could undermine
the progress that's been made.
I also think that the "civil unions for everybody" approach might help guarantee better rights not just for homosexual couples, but for everyone. If
we believe in the separation of church and state, then lets DO exactly that! And not have the government defining "marriage". Wouldn't the
precedent set by that kind of approach be applicable to other aspects of the law?
The government that governs least governs best, as one of the Founding Fathers put it. And I think there's an opportunity to reduce the governments
intrusiveness into our social affairs here that's being missed.