The Mouse Wants a Glass of Milk!

Many people that support civil unions for homosexual couples claim that the end is not to redefine "marriage". Civil unions would permit same-sex couples to have the same legal rights that a man and woman enjoy in the state of matrimony. They argue that civil unions permit couples to share equally in property, health care and retirement benefits, and in terms of adopting children. In Connecticut, they already gave the mouse a cookie.

According to a Reuters article eight same-sex couples, who are already joined in civil unions, are before the state's supreme court arguing that their unions should be called...marriages! So it's not about financial and legal equality? Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005, through their legislature. The civil unions allow for protection under state law, but not federal law. Of course, given that each state determines the criteria for eligibility for marriage licenses, that would make sense. Also, according to Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the civil union legislation denies the couples "equality as couples and families". He went on further to say that marriage "is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals." The state confers this status? Yes, you obtain a license from the state in which you are to be married, but most people are married in some sort of religious context.

Marriage is much more than a piece of paper to the majority of people. In the case of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrament and one of the ways that we can experience God's grace. How insensitive these people must be to want to trivialize something that means so much to so many. Of course, because Christianity is so "intolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle, most members of the gay and lesbian community do not see any need to exhibit tolerance themselves. Are same-sex couples going to begin demanding that they be allowed to marry in religious ceremonies, even when said religion, in no uncertain terms, teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Talk about a violation of the separation of Church and State!

Would you please do me a favor? Go grab a dictionary and look up the word "marriage". Here is the dictionary.com definition. Given that the very definition states "a man and a woman", it certainly looks like these activists are using the courts to overrule the will of the people as exercised by their elected representatives. There is no law against these people using words like "marriage" or "husband" or "wife". They can take it upon themselves to exercise their First Amendment rights and use whatever words they want to describe their life choice and their significant others. Rather than do that, they feel it is necessary to make everyone, including the government, to redefine the very meaning of marriage. This, like all political correctness, is all about hypersensitivity and control over other people. A few people get themselves worked up about words, rather than behavior or actions. Have you ever stopped yourself from saying something amongst your acquaintances because you're afraid it might offend? I know that I have, but here's the thing: even if you decide to trade euphenisms, people who are looking to be offended will be offended by the most innocuous things. So, we'll see if the Connecticut State Supreme Court starts pouring the glass of milk.