Here's one of the problems with crazy, irrational legislation: "Sexual orientation" (or "preference" or "identity" or "expression") remains undefined in the law. As clear-thinking critics have warned all along, chaos will result.I wonder if the "chaos" she speaks of is the the same chaos that Article 8 predicted would ensue after May 17, 2004. Listen...hear the crickets, see the sun rise, see families finally being protected (as least on the State level). Now that I think of it, that's one thing I can thank Gov. Romney for, I got married on his watch. Because of him, I am legally married to the man I love. I can't wait to shout it nationally when he runs for President, the country should know how happy we are! However, I'm getting off point.
Back to the two men in Canada, sounds kind of stupid to me, but as long as they are adults and love each. Then again, how many people in the US get married for love? Do you think these men are taking marriage seriously? Probably not since they both have been married before. They still don't realize what comes with marriage. There are not only tax benefits but serious responsibilities.
Do they realize:
- They have a commitment to remain married. (They failed at a heterosexual marriage)
- Disqualification from Government benefits available to single people.
- They are responsible for the necessary debts of their spouses including medical bills.
- Courts can require people who break up to still support their spouses.
While they think it's a "hoot" to be able to get married, marriage is serious business and not something to take lightly. I think heterosexuals forget that.