jessica wrote:
] ] As Ms. Hall, 55, listened, her eyes widened. "I just
] ] don't agree," she said. "You marry to procreate. You
] ] can't procreate if you marry someone from the same sex.
] ] As a Catholic, I feel very strongly about this. My
] ] religion doesn't permit me to agree with that kind of
] ] lifestyle."
]
] What a disturbing quote.. "My religion DOESN'T PERMIT ME TO
] AGREE..."

yeah, that's stupid, even if it is kinda true, or, maybe, especially if it is. and she's right, insofar as the pope defines "Catholic" and he's made statements calling for opposition to gay marriage.

to be honest though, the word 'marry' does have specific connotations that are impossible to separate in the short term. to most people it doesn't mean "to join two people who love each other very much"... it means the creation of a specific kind of family.

i think vermont has it right. call it a civil union on the books, allow those who wish to see it as a legal issue (inheritance rights, tax issues, etc.) do so and let those who see it as a marriage do so. the semantic issue of what it's called by everyone else will work itself out as people continue to use the language. my guess is, people being lazy, it'll be called marriage. if the laws are worded in a neutral way, there's less silly semantic debate and more actually getting things done and establishing fair, equitable rights for all "permanent couples".

i feel like many of the Ms. Halls of the world wouldn't respond so strongly to "civil unions" as they would to "gay marriage".

maybe i'm overestimating people's reactions to semantics, though, and it wouldn't matter. just my opinion.