From: "Judy F." 



Mark wrote:

>  the > answer is almost certainly to leave tradition alone and allow civil
unions
> to address the real issues facing gay couples. I don't see it so much as
> "being against gay marriage" as being for a tradition of a
"man and a woman"
> that has endured for millenia across geographic, idealogical, and religious
> boundaries.

Whether or not you're "right" about leaving tradition alone and
allowing civil unions, I still don't think an amendment banning gay
marriage is the route to take.  In any case, isn't a civil union a
marriage, with a different set of words, a different label?

And more importantly, I think long-term committed gay couples should have
some of the same benefits of married heterosexual couples. Shouldn't one
partner in a gay committed relationship be allowed to inherit their jointly
held property should the other partner die? Shouldn't the surviving partner
be allowed to raise the children they adopted together?  I know of a number
of cases where the parents of the deceased partner have stepped in and
removed their grandchildren from the custody of the surviving partner. 
That would mean the child was essentially twice orphaned.   Should each of
the partners be allowed to
make living will decisions without a living will?

Judy

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5