http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003323496_gays26.html
See - this is I think what may be what most can agree on, and what the core issue is. A gay couple in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual one - the unquestioned right to be there in the hospital at their partner's bedside (when no one but family is allowed); the ability to share health insurance, retirement benefits; some protection in a breakup so they both recieve a fair share of assets mutually earned; the ability, if they adopt a child, for both of them to be legal parents - etc.
What it's called, how we make sure it's not some second class version of marriage that extremists have fun watering down - those are all questions of how - but this Jersy court just answered the 'what' rather than the 'how'. It didn't say gay marriage must be legal, it just said that gays do deserve the same rights as heterosexual marriages.
See - this is I think what may be what most can agree on, and what the core issue is. A gay couple in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual one - the unquestioned right to be there in the hospital at their partner's bedside (when no one but family is allowed); the ability to share health insurance, retirement benefits; some protection in a breakup so they both recieve a fair share of assets mutually earned; the ability, if they adopt a child, for both of them to be legal parents - etc.
What it's called, how we make sure it's not some second class version of marriage that extremists have fun watering down - those are all questions of how - but this Jersy court just answered the 'what' rather than the 'how'. It didn't say gay marriage must be legal, it just said that gays do deserve the same rights as heterosexual marriages.