It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people cohabiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that being able to transfer property is a civil right.
There is a difference between civil partnerships and marriage. That difference does not mean one is better than another.
I do believe that the states have the right to make the definition of marriage, and each state can define it as they so choose through their elected representatives.
However saying that I totally support the concept of civil partnerships in the eyes of the law, and think it a disgrace that same sex couples have had to wait so long for legal rights, protection and recognition.
Civil marriage, like all civil rights provided by the government, must be provided equally to all Americans.
I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage.
I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things - such as traditional marriage - that, I think, express a community's concern and regard for a particular institution.
Defining marriage is a power that should be left to the states. Moreover, no state should be forced to recognize a marriage that is not within its own laws, Constitution, and legal precedents.
I believe marriage is a human right, not a state right.
If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, and if civil partnerships are seen as somehow 'second class' that is a social attitude which will change and cannot, in any case, be turned around by redefining the law of marriage.