Matthew -

First I'd like to know the administrative rule that you quote - does the relationship have to have the items/qualities that are listed or is it one of those if you have two or three out of this list then you qualify for/as DP?

Second, I rather thought I had answered the question - to me once you redefine a term, a word - be that word marriage or family; you open up a pandora's box as to what the word now means. If marriage is expanded to merely two people (based on they love each other and want to be committed to each other) then people in communes and basically in ANY relationship where the individuals declare love and a commitment would fall under that definition. Likewise, if a family is defined as a group of people living together with someone (or two someones) taking responsibility for the well-being of others living in the same house (regardless of marital status) then again, many/any of the alternative lifestyles would fall under that definition.

Folks argue that it is the slippery slope argument but in fact it's actually already a reality. In the Netherlands the first three person civil union took place back in 9/05 (link:http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301)

THAT is why I'm against it, you start the redefinition, and everyone has the right to ask so why is the new line drawn there? BTW - while I was against last sessions SB 100 which tried to give gay couples the same rights as married hetrosexual couples, I didn't object to the reworked bill that indeed would have allowed a son who's sick mother lived with him to be covered, or two elderly sisters living together (non-sexual) to have coverage under one or the other's health insurance policy. However, the gay community wanted the "bedroom test" and wouldn't go for anything less - Sam wouldn't even have had to try to introduce this bill if the revamped SB 100 had been agreed to by the pro-gay forces.