Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Discrimination, gay marriages
Message-ID: <673@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 12:49:32 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.673
Posted: Mon Apr 16 12:49:32 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 08:23:57 EST
References: <897@linus.UUCP> <19399@wivax.UUCP> <672@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 14

Naturally, if unmarried heterosexual cohabitants (sounds awfully clinical,
doesn't it?) were given special protection and benefits through the
statute, one would be rightfully outraged if the same were not given to
same-sex relationships.  I don't think that was the issue in S.F.
neither group had protection previously--the purpose of the statute
was to extent protection to cohabitants, regardless of sex.

You have an interesting point regarding "common-law" marriages.
I wonder what the wording of the statutes is in those states which
recognize such relationships.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA