Well, would you look at that.

[featherynscale]

Well, this just about makes my morning: Fox News (yeah, that Fox News) poll shows a plurality of respondents favor civil unions for same-sex couples. Granted, the question asked does specify that proposed civil unions would not be marriages, but still - positive movement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm after marriage rights for everybody, but I'm willing to accept this civil union thing as a temporary measure.

Comments

Re: Mmmm, statistics

[kittenpants.livejournal.com]

Yup, I agree with featherynscale here.

What's really sad is that "Should gays get civil unions that allow them the same legal rights as married people?" and "Should gays get civil unions that allow them legal rights in insurance, inheritance, hospital visits, and pension?" Get totally different answers based around the presence of the M word.

I still think that if the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, and most Pagans define marriage to include gays, and more conservative religions/denominations define it to exclude gays, then when you have the government stepping in and codifying which religion's definition of marriage is legal, you're stepping all over the 1st amendment. Marriage should not be legally defined anywhere. Gays, straights, bis, etc. should all have 'civil unions' for the legal purposes of insurance and inheritance, and marriage should be a separate thing, untouched by government.

I mean, if a UU minister were to marry two gay people, and then have the marriage rejected by the government, then the UUA could sue the gov't for religious descrimination, right? Then it would escalate to the supreme court, and they'd either have to rule that marriage is purely secular and so can be regulated by the gov't (not bloody likely, that'll piss off both sides of the spectrum), or that distinctions need to be made between religious ceremonies and legal unions.