Not that I really believe these things, but my horoscope tells me that I’m willing to strike up a bargain to please both sides. In that vein, perhaps I can tackle the hot topic of Gay Marriage versus Civil Unions.
As I understand it, (thanks to a few other journal entries), most homosexuals don’t like the idea of a “Civil Union” because it puts them in the position of being second-class citizens. (“Why can’t we have marriage the same as the ‘straight world,'” I heard one gay man say.)
Many heterosexuals nix the idea of “Gay Marriage” because they believe the word “marriage,” by definition, implies a relationship between a man and a woman.
And meanwhile, while we’re all arguing over semantics, the issue goes on and on and on.
Perhaps it’s a sad truth of our society, but no problem is solved with a single piece of legislation or action. Personally, I don’t feel that I have the right to tell two homosexual people deeply in love and committed to each other, who happen to be willing to put that committment on paper and live a life as devoted to each other as a strong heterosexual marriage couple would that they don’t have that right.
If legislators are willing to pass “Civil Union” bills that at least give gays equal rights, isn’t this a good first step? Must it automatically be the end of the line? Does it have to mean that that the lawmakers are saying, “Okay, we’ll throw you this nugget, and you’ll never get anything else?”
The “all or nothing” mentality, it seems to me, can as easily alienate potential supporters as accomplish goals. Am I missing something here?