0 Votes
RE: Why not?
I don’t have any objections to numbers greater than two.
I think the term “marriage” should either apply to all of them or none of them. I don’t think it’s acceptable for the law to recognize “marriage” between heterosexual couples and “something else” for others.
I think it would be acceptable for the government to stop calling all of them “marriages”, and only offer “civil unions” or whatever, but the same term should apply to all, precisely because the intent is that they are equivalent. Using separate language is just an invitation to future inequality.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
I agree the government should use a general word that applies to all when it’s trying to speak concerning laws that apply to all. If it wants to give benefits or exact penalties on only certain types of relationships, then it should use a word that only applies to some of them.
It sounds insanely obvious … but that’s my point.
It makes me chuckle that people are in such a fuss over this. It reminds me of my kids. As soon as my 1-yr old plays with a toy, that is the toy my 4-year old wants. It doesn’t matter what toy it is; it matters that his brother has it and he doesn’t.