The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.

It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.

As far as siblings, or other people, taking the legal status of someone we historically think of as a spouse, goes, I don't see a problem with that either. I am curious, though, what kind of undertaking that would be. You'd have to look at all the laws on both state and federal levels to see how that would play out if you wanted to ditch all marriages and replace them with civil unions. We'd have similar questions if we wanted to legalize poly marriages as well, though that would probably be more complex.

Yes I agree with you about why people propose Civil Unions as the name instead of Marriage. It's all terminology but I guess I would feel weird marrying my brother so he could get health insurance.

Right now the only difference between my marriage and a gay couple (that say they are married) is that my wife is covered by my insurance and has rights as my wife (partner) whereas the gay couple is screwed. It's not right. To go a step further, my wife and I got married primarily so she would be covered by my insurance. We lived together for 8 years first. Been together 21 years total.

Changing the laws would be rough but well worth whatever effort is required.

All that being said, I support gay rights 100% and will vote for them if given the opportunity but I will probably still have a couple chicken biscuits from CFA this year. Allow me a guilty pleasure. I promise to consume a Pepsi to neutralize support I may contribute to organizations I disdain.

Wait, I thought it was Coke...

The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.

It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.

As far as siblings, or other people, taking the legal status of someone we historically think of as a spouse, goes, I don't see a problem with that either. I am curious, though, what kind of undertaking that would be. You'd have to look at all the laws on both state and federal levels to see how that would play out if you wanted to ditch all marriages and replace them with civil unions. We'd have similar questions if we wanted to legalize poly marriages as well, though that would probably be more complex.

Yes I agree with you about why people propose Civil Unions as the name instead of Marriage. It's all terminology but I guess I would feel weird marrying my brother so he could get health insurance.

Right now the only difference between my marriage and a gay couple (that say they are married) is that my wife is covered by my insurance and has rights as my wife (partner) whereas the gay couple is screwed. It's not right. To go a step further, my wife and I got married primarily so she would be covered by my insurance. We lived together for 8 years first. Been together 21 years total.

Changing the laws would be rough but well worth whatever effort is required.

All that being said, I support gay rights 100% and will vote for them if given the opportunity but I will probably still have a couple chicken biscuits from CFA this year. Allow me a guilty pleasure. I promise to consume a Pepsi to neutralize support I may contribute to organizations I disdain.

Wait, I thought it was Coke...

Coke and Pepsi both support gay rights. I just prefer Pepsi. Don't tell anyone. Here in GA I could be killed for saying that.

I thought I read/heard somewhere that the reason of “traditional marriage” was instituted and woven into the fabric of our constitution was to give rights to the children that would be a subsequent product of that union? I could be wrong..

I think "Christians" keep forgetting one of the more important laws of religion; Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself!
Ultimately ""Why the hell does a fast food restaurant have a stance on same sex marriage?"
Someone explain this to me?

Oh I'm with you! And, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I think that the owner is a douche, not only because he gives money to hate-promoting organizations, but because he should have realized how polarizing his commentary would be, and how likely it was to create a kerfuffle. I think it was fiscally irresponsible to his franchise owners to open his trap.

Agreed! Dan Cathy is smart as whip. . .for his bottomline. Look at all of the free fookin' bucks he's making from his latest comments!! He might believe himself sincere and in that respect is delusional but he has the marketing thing down cold.

Don't employers have to abide by federal hiring laws? In that case, his company couldn't discriminate legally against sexual orientation and that's his beef. . .I mean chicken? Is this issue what started his "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as written in the Bible" comments?

-Debra

I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.

Thanks for clarifying, Adrian. Based on your other posts, I thought that must be what you meant, but it's good to be sure.

I find it ironic all of this publicity has increased Chick-Fila's sales allowing them to send even more money to anti-gay charities if they chose.

(Yea, yea, yea I know some of those people do support real causes. I also know that most don't because if even half of them did the world would be much better off.)