[mnmpeanut]

imo, the fight for the recognition of same sex marraiges is not just a benefits package. there are many churches that will perform a ceremony joining two men or two women together as "married", and some people are fine with this. currently, these unions are not recognized by the government in most states, and therefore, are not recognized by many institutions that use the government's standards as their guideline in determining "married" or single. some gay people feel slighted by this lack of recognition and want their union recognized and respected in the country's eyes as the same as a heterosexual's. some don't care about the term "marraige" and are secure enough in their relationship that they don't really care if them being together is considered "married" or not (much like many heterosexuals who live together for extended periods without getting married). but, when you share your life with someone - male, female, whatever - you want to, and, again, in my opinion, should be able to expect the same benefits as a heterosexual married person (and if you don't think heterosexual people already in relationships, especially older people, get married just for the benefits provided by the government, you're naive.). denying them this because you don't agree with their lifestyle makes no sense to me. it all seems so incredibly selfish.

i don't understand what other reasons besides hate or selfishness would cause someone who is, in all fairness, unaffected by this legislation to vote to ban same sex marraiges. if you don't think its "right", fine. no one is asking you to. just like no one is asking you to agree with the catholic church because they are allowed to be built in your neighborhood. i don't think drinking or smoking are "right" either, but i'm not gonna go next door and tell charlie the policeman that he needs to quit drinking a 6 pack while he's watching the game. and i'm sure not gonna go out of my way to restrict his freedom from doing so because i don't agree with it or think its immoral.

i guess i just don't get it.



on a side note, i think the biggest problem the "same sex marraige movement" has is the use of the word marraige. if they would stick to the use of the term "civil union", than many of the religious "sanctity of marriage" people wouldn't be so vigilant in fighting this.