[ilovew]

I did explain why it’s irrelevant. I don’t know of any definition of civil union that includes animals. Thus, the irrelevance of your question. If the definition is confusing you, though, here ya go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20union

I looked at all the definitions, they don’t mention animals.

[caffe]

If all one had to do is “love” another, then someone who falls in love with man’s best friend should NOT be denied their civil rights.

Since when is sexual perversion a civil right?

[TigersEye]

Dictionaries don't create definitions they just list them. Who came up with that? What is the history of "civil union?" Where has it ever existed before?

The answer is that liberal homosexual activists came up with the defintion. It has no history beyond that. It never existed until the VT Supreme Court ordered the VT legislature to write it into law about ten years ago. It has no cultural basis, no religious basis and no legal basis beyond the last few years of liberal judiciary activisism.

As ridiculous as all that is if that is acceptable to the courts then it is perfectly reasonable to include animals, multiple partners or "civil union" with a patch of Spanish Moss.

My original post accurately reflects the absurdity of any kind of "civil union" being enshrined in law.