re: #180 wrenchwench

Not sure I agree with that. If, as it seems many in America object to the definition of marriage being expanded to include same sex marriages, the most logical way to deal with it is to say that you are free to define marriage any way you choose. The state should not care. The state, and the legal system merely must enforce practices around civil unions be they homosexual or heterosexual. If the Cathoic church wants to say there is no Catholic gay marriage, that is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant, other than to one’s acceptance within the Catholic Church. End the political and legal recognition or “marriage” completely. There should be no state marriage licence for anyone. It should be a state civil union licence for hetero or homosexual alike. Insurance companies would be unable to deny spousal benefits, hospitals unable to deny visitation, tax authorities unable to deny status. If you have a civil union certificate or fall under the common law definitions of civil union, you are civil union. You want to say I am “married”? Go right ahead. It has no legal status whatsoever. Merely reflects a religious or social construct that you would like to adhere to. Your Church wants to endorse your civil union as a marriage within its social constructs? Good for them. They can do whatever they want. However, other than recognition within that particular congregation, it has no relevance whatsoever. I just don’t get it. I am Jewish, at my marriage I signed both a Ketuvah (A Jewish marriage contact) and a Marriage Licence. Those two documents mark the exact same event, but have completely different purposes. One civil, the other personal. Separation of Church and State demands legislation that prevents the religious definition of marriage from having any significance to the discussion.

It seems to me that this would be the ultimate “fuck you” to the religious zealots in that it would do more to unravel the religious theocracy they are slowly trying to impose.