Originally Posted by Barcham
They would suffice but they are also prohibited by the same laws that prohibit same sex 'marriage'. What's important is equality under the law for same sex and traditional partnerships, not whatever term you choose to describe the life partnership between two consenting adults.
Some states already allow same sex civil unions, which offer the same legal protections as traditional marriage...even in those states, the homosexual activists aren't satisfied and want marriage...which was only recently re-defined in the dictionary to include same sex. Marriage has been defined in the West as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, for centuries.
If you want insurance companies to recognize same sex unions, take it up with the insurance companies.
Marriage is regulated by States NOT the federal gov't. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That means that the federal gov't has nothing to do with the regulation of marriage...marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal gov't. Now if you buy in to the whole selective incorporation scheme that the supremes have given us, then you can use the 14th amendment to allow the feds to get involved. But that seems capricious unless you believe that ALL of the BOR is incorporated. As it stands today, the States and the PEOPLE get to decide those things that aren't enumerated powers of the federal gov't. It's part of our federalism...and it's in the Constitution.
The real solution to the issue it seems to me, is to get gov't out of the marriage game. No tax breaks, no social engineering in the tax code...period. You can live with and love anybody you choose, that's your business.
You're Canadian...what business is it of yours anyway? We're not trying to change Canadian law, culture or tradition...why are you worried about American law, culture and tradition? Go play with your beaver.