Originally posted by DrGonzo: FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions. I see "marriage" more as a cultural religious act. Perhaps we need civil unions for hetero's as well.
Originally posted by Sandman333: Just to be clear, I pretty much agree with Jato on this one. Call it whatever you want. Allow them their equal rights. But do NOT, under any circumstances, allow them to invade and defile the institution of marriage.
No offense to the authors here â?¦ but I found the first quote on page 40, and the second on page 42 of this thread. Now I know that I and others have mentioned this a number of times before â?¦ but here goes.
There currently does not exist any other legal term for what most of us here agree should be called â??civil unionâ?, except for the word â??marriage.â? You cannot go to city hall and apply for a civil union license â??? it simply doesnâ??t exist.
To DrGonzo's point, civil unions do certainly already exist for heteros â??? thousands of civil ceremonies in city halls across the nation every day attest to that fact â??? not to mention casinos, ships and God knows where else. (Sorry, couldnâ??t help myself.)
But, and here it is again, our civil authorities and every statute concerning the issue, insist on calling it â??marriageâ? even when no church or religion is involved. And there is a significant history and heritage to this definitiion of marriage, as there is with the religious one.
And to Sandmanâ??s point, I think you are at the point where most informed citizens are about this issue right now; at least those who are trying to reconcile the civil rights issues with their religious beliefs. And thatâ??s where I have a big problem with the amendments.
They have the effect of forcing the religious definition of â??marriageâ? onto the not-so-similar meaning and intent of the civil definition of â??marriageâ? which really should be called â??civil unionâ? for everybody, IMO.
Moreover, to further exacerbate the debate, many amendments also made civil unions illegal â??? and that to me is the wedge thatâ??s going to crack this whole thing open in the courts.
Hmm.... let me ask the forum this:
How do you feel about public nudity? Certainly, we could and should categorize those who are members of nudist camps as a minority. However, we are enforcing our morals and values on them by requiring them to wear clothes in public. It would not harm me any more to see a nudist practicing their philosophy than it would to allow gay marriage, but I am against both because I believe both to be detrimental to a society based upon family cohesion. We, as a society, hold to certain values. Any and every law could be considered discrimination if we want to take it to ridiculous levels. However, I don't think we want to take it there. I think we, as a society, have every right to have our voice heard by popular vote as to what we do and do not find acceptable. The people have spoken.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
