posted on June 8, 2006 05:50:29 PM new
rusty- Thanks, I was under the impression a civil union afforded more rights than it appears they do. I thought it was going to be in all states, didn't know it is a state-by-state thing, etc.. etc....
But I've never checked into civil unions or been worried whether or not homosexuals could get married. It's not really so much that I'm against it....I just don't care one way or the other. Any life-long couple should have those basic rights, regardless. I just don't think the word "married" should matter that much.
But, I am in no way in favor of those "flava-of-the-month" relationships having those rights. There has to be some time involved. Time=Commitment.
But I do think it's better than nothing....(without trying to sound as bad as I know it probably does.)
posted on June 9, 2006 01:56:55 PM new
twig- i understand how you feel. i know that starbucks coffee offers benefits to "domestic partners" as well as those who are married. i've always wondered what exactly "domestic partners" benefits meant. does that cover anybody in a relationship with an employee (at any length/any sex), are there time limits, or is this meant to cover gay/lesbian partners only. if so, how do they determine who is eligible?
