Quote Originally Posted by js207 View Post
That would be nice, although it is not yet the status quo. One day, perhaps the government will actually be required to be race and gender blind, but not yet. As for age-blind, that has some interesting side effects for liquor and driving laws, not to mention Medicare and Social Security...
I should have kept the original title for this piece and prefaced it to set a perspective. the original title was "On the subject of gay marriage and constitutional amendment" and it was written in response to an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution. In that context I feel that citizens of the "age of majority" would have been presumed by the reader. I sadly must agree with you that my first point is not the "status quo". But I speak to the ideals of the document. The Constitution already provides for the ideal of equality, It is "We the People" that fall short in making it the truth.


Quote Originally Posted by js207 View Post
There, we can agree: the government has no business getting involved in "marriage". I'm not convinced the existence of "civil union" is necessary or even desirable, though. If we agree it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of age, gender and race, how is it acceptable to discriminate on marital status?
Indeed we do agree that the government has no business being involved in "marriage" by my definition of it. The civil union does however exist, regardless of it being an undesirable state of affairs in its current form. That is why it must be changed if not abolished.


Quote Originally Posted by js207 View Post
Fortunately, marriage is not restricted to citizens: I know plenty of people who would be rather upset by that new discrimination!
Indeed they would, for many it would close off the path to citizenship that is offered through the civil union, and for even that one reason, though there are many more, the concept of civil union must be corrected rather than abolished.

Quote Originally Posted by js207 View Post
On a more serious note, do you believe civil unions should be restricted by age, relationship between people, number of people...? Should, say, Frasier Crane and his father get these benefits, since they cohabit and would probably benefit financially? What about the three member "couple" I know in England - should the three of them get this status?
No, I do not believe that civil unions should be restricted in any way. If (using your example) Frasier Crane and his father decided to enter a civil union, merge their assets and give each other specific legal rights in regards to those assets. Yes they should be able to form a union. As for your three member couple in England. In the context of this post, No. Only because the U.S. government has no authority over citizens of England. If that trio were U.S. citizens then yes they should be able to form a union. I would also add that the union be able to be amended at a later date to include additional partners should the original parties choose to do so.

Again this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.