Thanks for the admission none the less.<quoted text>
i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.
Agreed.why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.
Thank you. appreciate the input. In a sense the laws are already being rewritten now, or in some cases, gender specific terms are being deleted, and there is a difference in the nature of the union. I don't know the extent of the Colorado CU, but I would presume it is extensive.i'm not sure if a CU would suffice or not. my concern is, humans being human, mistakes will be made in either the editing of existing laws to include appropriate CU verbiage or in writing additional laws. this will be expensive for the fed to accomplish and lengthy (in terms of writing and time). from my own personal experience, it's never an easy task, the old adage "all ya gotta do is" is never as simple as the sales guy thinks it is (i speak from an engineers perspective...LOL). i'd hate to see a couple strung up due to a verbiage error. i'd hate to see the extra expenses of rewriting laws or the costs involved when a mistake is made. i just think that allowing same sex couples to use the same terminology makes the most sense, is the expeditious means to grant everyone access to the same laws, protections and priviliges. others may feel or think differently. that's just my take on CU's.