[cashflyer]

And, just to get things rolling, here is some more commentary:


I tend to agree that this is driven by their desire for "married" benifits such as taxation as a family, eligibility for insurance, etc. I agree because these are the most frequent issues brought up in news coverage of the debate.

But to the average voter, I think this is about more than money and benifits. (In reality, I don't think letting them "marry" and get spousal benifits would cause a bit of harm to government programs or raise our taxes.) To the average voter, I believe this is more about acceptance of a lifestyle that many view as immoral.

This country was founded by people who believed in God, and who had conservative values. But it was also founded as a place of religious freedom. And with true religious freedom comes the freedom to choose any other religion or no religion. That freedom brings into play not only God and Jesus, but Moses, Budda, Allah, Ganesha, Shiva, and others not appearing in this episode.

So are we a country that is still "one nation under God" as founded? I guess not. Maybe "one nation under Gods". Still, I am not aware of a single religion that is accepting of homosexual unions. This means the morality of every major religion deems "marriage" as 1m + 1f.

So are we (as a country) a moral people? I like to believe so.

Should we be tolerant of homosexuals? Probably. Sure. Why not.
But, should we accept them?

There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance, and statutorily acknowledging these unions is forced acceptance.