That, oddly enough is how I feel about it. It is getting really uncomfortable for true small-government advocates to stay in the Republican Party. Now, the Democrats are worse (they want to take Jen's .45, fer crying out loud) but where's a guy supposed to go if he really isn't too offended by the term 'civil marriage' being defined as 'a legal convenience which allows two or more people to be treated as one legal entity for certain purposes."
My Church defines marriage in a particular way--but last time I checked, that definition applies only to members of the Church who wish their unions blessed in the Church.
Since serial monogamy became accepted as standard practice 40 years ago, the idea of marriage as some sacred institution which must be respected and protected is a joke. If the straights are going to treat it as nothing more than a convenience, why not offer the same convenience to queers and whoever else wants it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
In all, 45 Republicans and three Democrats voted to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in opposition.
no subject
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155#state
no subject
no subject
My Church defines marriage in a particular way--but last time I checked, that definition applies only to members of the Church who wish their unions blessed in the Church.
Since serial monogamy became accepted as standard practice 40 years ago, the idea of marriage as some sacred institution which must be respected and protected is a joke. If the straights are going to treat it as nothing more than a convenience, why not offer the same convenience to queers and whoever else wants it?