re: #338 Nimed

Do those same people object to the word “marriage” when talking about a civil marriage not accompanied by any religious ceremony? Because I’m not aware of anyone protesting the fact that the term “marriage” has been used outside of a religious context for a long time now. For this reason, have doubts about the sincerity of those people.

Doubt away.

Before the idea of having gay people have the same contractual rights as marrried heterosexual couples became an issue (and I am all FOR THAT, by the way - I have a gay brother who suffered greatly because there IS no such thing) - then the term marriage automatically referred to heterosexual couples. And frankly, I have to get a license from the State in addition to getting married by a Priest. So already, we do TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It’s always been that way.

I’m suggesting naming the state civil part of it a civil union; and people, hetero or homosexual, who wish to get married in a church and belong to a church that performs marriages, would get married in the church in addition to the civil union.