Personally I despise the hypocrisy of the state when it forces a certain value system on us with the marriage laws (like tax breaks for married couples - so the state takes a stance against unmarried couples for moral reasons).
Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed.
But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all.
Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody, property rights.
Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal access to the legal system and its protections as a result.
You have the right to believe in whatever you want.
You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have.
Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.
I suppose you don't believe in imprisoning criminals then?
Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions.
Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that).
Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you?
And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.
Since the gist of my argument was "let's not fight over something we can solve" perhaps we just add the term "civil union" wherever the term marriage appears. Or perhaps we have a constitutional ammendment that makes the two phrases equal. For instance, I don't think you could go back in the historical record and change terms. The answer to that question may be based on how you make laws.
Another poster made a comment about 3 or more people in a union. I believe this follows naturally as well from an extension of the term "marriage". Things like multiple partners seem just fine in the 21st century. At least to me, but I'm a libertarian. Since the term seems to be opening up, as a hacker I say make the new definition in one place to be equal to anywhere else the term "marriage" was used.
Religion is just the handbook for a society (like the "turnkey" instructions manual for a McDonalds branch), therefore it includes marriage.
Also, I am confused: you are not religious, yet you style yourself as a supersensitive guy respecting the feelings of religious people. How about respecting the feelings of your son?
You are a bigot. You wish gays to be set aside as "different".
This is not 1960 and we are not talking about African Americans. Once civil unions are defined there is no way they can be treated any differently than other legal relationships, such as limited power of attorney.
Think this through. Please. Stop using a civil rights metaphor. It's not. It's more a question of the licensing power of the state and the nomenclature of the privileges involved.
If I thought for a minute that civil unions were "separate but equal" I would not support them. But I do not feel that way. It's just rhetoric.
More significantly, I disagree with Google's taking a position on this issue. I think corporations should think seriously about taking positions in domestic, cultural issues. Civil rights issues? Go for it. Changing the definition of religious terms? Out of bounds. I'm not religious, but this seems to make the most sense in my own life. Google should do the same.
If Google wants to wade into politics, then welcome to the party. I'm sure they are comfortable with the results of becoming political -- when people with opposing views make and change the laws in order to diminish Google's political power. That's the way politics works. I'm also concerned with idealists who only whine about things that are easy and never take a stand where they could make a real difference or where it could really hurt. What about billions in China not getting the full internet? Well, to listen to Google that's a much more complex subject.
Right.