<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 08/16/2010 08:08 PM, Dianne Dawson wrote:<!-- DIV {margin:0px;}
--><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:989139.45190.qm@web110803.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div
style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<div>From a purely secularist point of view you make some good
points. However, you and I both know the reason for "civil unions" is
NOT a "life partnership." The purpose is to legitimize an immoral
state of living. I think you are way off the mark by equating modern
day, same sex, "civil unions" to (what you call) "life partnerships" of
biblical times OR monastaries and convents of any time.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Some conservatives have proposed another compromise that preserves
traditional marriage. That is to have the secular state offer *only*
civil unions. If you want a marriage, you get it from the church (in
addition to the civil union for the legal contract). That leaves the
definition of "marriage" in the hands of your church. Of course, gay
churches would immediately offer gay "marriage", and begin confusing
people. Which is why I don't support that proposal. There is an
important secular state interest in maintaining marriage as a special
contract - because it is the optimum way to raise future citizens of
the state.<br>
</body>
</html>