Follow Up: Ettelbrick, FAQ's, Vaccaro

I was really enlightened by these readings. I previously thought that it was completely fair that homosexual people had civil unions and I believed that they were essentially the same thing as marriage, only different in name. However, after reading FAQ's, I found that civil unions are far from marriage. I think it's great to have civil unions if people just want to declare their love, but it is definitely not to be put on the same level as marriage. I was shocked to see how much of a discrepancy there was between the benefits of marriage and civil unions. For one, I didn't know that civil unions only functioned at the state level, although I guess that should have been obvious. I also didn't realize what a huge gap there was in expenses. I can't believe that the government is able to continue what is clearly such an unfair practice. It just seems to archaic to me to keep this institution alive. We clearly have homosexual people in our midst and I think at this point it is pretty widely accepted that there are some people who are homosexuals. The fact that we continue to support these unfair policies is so anti-progress.

I thought that Vaccaro's story, especially, gave me an inside look into what it must feel like to be homosexual and not have the same rights. Her story about the white dress surrounded by a rainbow of colors was really inspiring. I also thought Ettelbrick's point was really interesting. By creating these separate institutions for homosexuals, the government is essentially labeling them second class citizens. It is incredibly astounding to me that these policies have continued for so long, when for me, it seems like common sense that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as any other couple that is in love.