Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:I didn't mean to imply that. Let them have a civil union, but lets leave the definition of marriage alone. Its for a man and a woman.
But, even if we are allowed our 'civil unions' your still going to have the proud parent that announces to their friends/family that their son or daughter is getting married. That parent is happy for their child and is not going to be going around saying, "Im so happy, my daughter is getting unioned!' It sounds like something that would happen at work, only with a little hazing involved.
The smartest standpoint, and it has been mentioned before, is to allow all couples, gay or straight civil unions. If you want to get married, you can go in front of the church of your choice. I dont care if the couple is issued a marriage license then. Perhaps if the union is performed by a church, then its a marriage, if it is not, then its a union.
In all the 'conversations' about this I have ever been in, not once has the subject of actually forcing religions to accept it and actually perform the marriages, come up. Everyone can keep their religions to themselves, thats between you and God. For the most part, I think everyone here can agree that what one person believes, even if they are of the same faith, it will still differ from what the next person believes.
IMHO, forcing the amendment through, and then using scare tactics is not the way to go. The Utah amendment never even went before the constitutional review board to iron out the flaws before it got voted on. Had it gone, they would have caught serious flaws in its wording. So instead of doing it the way it should have, now its going to cost the a ton of money (which will come from the taxpayers, of course) to fight it because of poor wording. The amendment here had the current attorney general and both of his competitors against it. The Utah Bar Association of Family Law was also against it. When you have lawyers saying a new law is a bad idea that should raise a giant red flag.
