First of all, since many groups pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow, I’ll go with your biblical references (March 24, 2004) A,B, and C. C will only be by choice, not automatic. The rest of it is just a bad idea.

If I can’t have that, let’s look at your amendment (let’s look at it anyway — by the way, these comments are on the amendment, not your breakdown underneath, if I feel the need I’ll comment on that as well).

Change “citizens” in the first section to “persons.” “Citizens implies that both must be citizens of the US, I don’t see the point of that in any case. I understand the concept (though I don’t think that was your intention), but I don’t think it matters. Also, I’d like to see the wording at the end of that section a bit more vague (instead of identifying groups that won’t be forbidden under this amendment, just say “for any reason”). Otherwise it sounds like a law. I’m not adamant about this, either way works.

Section 2 is that redundant part that seems to be necessary in many amendments. Normally this is done automatically at marriages, a marriage license needs to be signed by witnesses (usually the best man and maid of honor). No real problems with this, it clarifies, which seems to be why we “need” the amendment (IF indeed we do).

Section 3 is probably unnecessary because of what I just said in the above paragraph, but I don’t see the harm…section 4 is just standard amendment language.

I might also add that while I agree with this idea, I’m capable of making a distinction between “marriage” and “civil union.” I’d like to think most people can do this but if that were true would we really need to have this discussion?

What do you mean by “man, woman, or other?” with reference to your civil union? Is there a third type of gender…or are you referencing anything…dog, cat, gerbil? I’m not sure I understand the need for “other.” Sex is a reference to a person, not a preference.

Overall though, obviously we have the same basic idea on what should be or should not be. The stuff I’ve mentioned appears (at least to me) to be just a couple of semantic things. The only question I have is about the definition of “other,” that might make a difference. The basic idea and principle is the same. I’m deeply upset that I have not been offended and was unable to get riled up about this, but it appears that in addition to agreeing, we actually agree for mainly the same reasons.

the “others” refers to those very very rare people who have fscked up gender roles, either both genitilia or neither. they should have rights as well. i can’t imagine them having much luck but it is possible. as i say in my first paragraph the goal was to be inclusive rather than exclusive. it does NOT refer to animals, plants, or non-living things (as much a disappointment that will be to some people i am sure).

section 2 is required language to make distinct the secular civil union and the religious marriage. it isn’t entirely redundant. section 3 is necessary to close loopholes so everyone already married doesn’t have to apply for a civil union and to prevent all kinds of court jams as people sue for any variety of issues like divorce (see! we were never married!) to child support (see! we were never married!) to complaining about the whole issue (damn! we were never married?).

i’m glad we agree in principle on this; i am wondering if mookee is going to chime in with a caustic comment…