Quote:
Originally Posted by All-American
If you afford all the rights to a homosexual couple that are afforded to a heterosexual couple but call it a different name, even if it is not substantially different, it is still different. It's the "separate but equal" doctrine that we've had off of the books for half a century now. It says that by the very nature of the thing, a homosexual relationship is just not the same as a heterosexual relationship. And the "pro-marriage" camp is not doing a very good job of justifying that distinction.
|
Isn't that a bit of a straw man? I'm not sure anyone is advocating affording
all the rights under a different name. This is a complex issue, and what people are in favor of or against depends greatly on the scope of the "right" in question.
For example, I don't oppose domestic partnerships for the purposes of hospital visitation or power of attorney, but I might for the purposes of adoption. I also would broaden the definition of a domestic partnership beyond homosexual partners to others who might require additional legal rights in a relationship. For example, a niece taking care of an ailing aunt.
I also view the term "separate but equal" as a red herring in this discussion. The "rights" at issue are starkly different from those faced by women or blacks.