re: #265 reine.de.tout

By “Church”, I meant (and should have said) religious organizations’ definition of marriage as being between man and woman. On that narrow item, the state’s definition matched the definition of most religious organizations that I’m aware of.

Sure, on that item, although as I’ve said, a lot of churches and shuls were doing same-sex marriages from way back in the 90s.

AND you bring up another point, which is that the state will license any combination for marriage; and various religious organizations have different ways of handling their marriage blessings for individuals, depending on circumstances, and are FREE TO DO SO. which should lay to rest any concerns anyone might have had about what different religious organizations will become REQUIRED to do as re: gay marriage.

I honestly would be absolutely fine in principle with the nation deciding that everyone gets a civil union, and that marriage will be a solely social or religious concept. I don’t think it’s very likely to happen any time soon—for one thing, I think it would be furiously opposed by many social-conservative groups, on the grounds that marriage was being ‘rejected’ by society.

I do not think Ojoe is a bigot in the slightest, and I’ve seen him in action for some time around here. But I definitely question whether it’s reasonable to think that there’s a real reason to completely change legal terminology around marriage.