New Hampshire approves gay civil unions

[Spider]

Let's face it - staying together in a committed relationship, whether married or not, takes a lot of work and certanly isn't easy. I agree that many people make a mockery of the institution, religious or not (Brittany Spears as a prominent example), but my point in all of this is that I don't see much difference in gay relationships or straight ones when it comes to commitment or lack of it, and see little justification for a ban on gay marriage.

My point in my earlier post of this morning was simply to reply to Phillywrestler, who said the the issue of gay marriage is academic because anyone can achieve certain legal assurances without being married.

[UGLY]

Spider I think it comes down to how you define marriage. TO most people and I would throw myself in here marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think civil unions should be open for all and they have the same legal rights as married people do. I dont know why gay or lesbian couples would have to be married why be joined in a civil union.

[Spider]

Spider I think it comes down to how you define marriage. TO most people and I would throw myself in here marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think civil unions should be open for all and they have the same legal rights as married people do. I dont know why gay or lesbian couples would have to be married why be joined in a civil union.

Marriage, as you said in an earlier post, indicates to many people much more than just a civil union, which could be likened to any legal contract. Gays would simply like the same opportunity as straights to be able to demonstrate their love and commitment by getting marrried. My feeling is why not? Why does the definition of marriage have to be between a man and a woman?

[UGLY]

Marriage, as you said in an earlier post, indicates to many people much more than just a civil union, which could be likened to any legal contract. Gays would simply like the same opportunity as straights to be able to demonstrate their love and commitment by getting marrried. My feeling is why not? Why does the definition of marriage have to be between a man and a woman?

As I have said before on the other board. If for some reason the government banned Christian marriage I would still be married to my wife. THe gov. may not recognize my marriage but I am not getting married to be recognized by anyone. I am married because I love my wife and wanted to be married to her in the tradition of my religion. If I wasnt already married and Christian marriage was illegal I would still marry my wif witout the perks of the gov. I would go through the hoops to have power of attorney and such. If I were gay I would not want to be joined in a union that is attributed to a religion that believes my relationship is an abomonation. THe type of relationship you have with your spouse is a personal one and the happiness you have in that relationship is not connected to what rights or name it is given by the government.

[Spider]

As I have said before on the other board. If for some reason the government banned Christian marriage I would still be married to my wife. THe gov. may not recognize my marriage but I am not getting married to be recognized by anyone. I am married because I love my wife and wanted to be married to her in the tradition of my religion. If I wasnt already married and Christian marriage was illegal I would still marry my wif witout the perks of the gov. I would go through the hoops to have power of attorney and such. If I were gay I would not want to be joined in a union that is attributed to a religion that believes my relationship is an abomonation. THe type of relationship you have with your spouse is a personal one and the happiness you have in that relationship is not connected to what rights or name it is given by the government.

I agree entitrely, which is why I said earlier that this discussion should focus on civil marriage, not religious marriage. A religion has the right to exclude anyone it wants to and make it's own rules (as long as they don't involve breaking the law). It is a private institution. Government, however, must include everyone, and shouldn't disenfranchise a particular group on the basis of sexual orientation.

[ODH]

The whole subject of Gay Marriage / Civil Union will be an issue that in a short period of time we will wonder why anyone made such a big deal over.

It has hapened in NH. When Vermont first passed civil unions (five or six years ago?), I heard a lot of conversations about it here and it was in the headlines of my local newspaper. There were people make anti-homosexual remarks or bashing Vermont saying how different NH is and it would never happen here.

Now during this whole NH debate, I did not hear anyone talking about it and it has had relatively little coverage in the newspaper.

Either people are becoming more accepting or they know there are real life and death issues to deal with, like the Iraq war.