|
Recent Blog Posts
Spinning: SCOTUS on Atlantic Yards, and a Skyscraper
Church-State Separatists Disappointed, Not Panicked, Over Obama Plan
British Museum: More Fun Than the Beach
Happy Birthday Diane Ravitch
|
|
Submitted by anonymous, May 8, 2007 12:38
I wouldn't have any problem with presidential candidiates who say they favor civil unions if they would only explain further that they mean they intend to push for FEDERAL recognition of civil unions and provide all of the federal benefits that go with them.
What good does it do for a candidate for federal office to say they are in favor of individual states giving state level benefits to couples in civil unions? They should address what they will do on the FEDERAL level.
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
|
|
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this article
Comment on Gay Rites Will Help Families, Spitzer Says
|
Dog Days of Summer
A New York Sun Advertorial Section
NEW YORK ›
New Yorkers at High Risk of Hospital Infections
All-Star Game Shaping Up As Baseball's Super Bowl
Paterson Widens Budget While Demanding Cuts
Parks Dept. Scrambles To Rid Parks of Illegal Activities
General Theological Seminary Issues a Plea for Help
New Yorkers Urged To Be Tourists in the City
NATIONAL ›
Obama: McCain 'Abandoned' Immigration Stance
Wiesel Testifies Against Man Accused of Hotel Battery
Murphy Won't Join McCain Campaign
Crews Struggle Against 330 California Wildfires
Mourners Gather To Remember Senator Helms
Study: Congress Must Be Consulted on War
ARTS+ ›
King of Infinite Space: Louis Begley's Kafka Book
Dividing Lines: Bill Bishop's 'The Big Sort'
A 'Giselle' With Speed and Style
A Man for All Seasons: 'John Stuart Mill, Victorian Firebrand'
Hollywood Courts Freed Hostages
British Artists Sick of Space
|