Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Baltimatt

McCain favors California marriage limitations; Obama in middle

31 posts in this topic

And that's fine. I doubt people mind the term civil union which is a secular recognition. The word marriage has religious connotations which is a different matter.
A good influential person who believes in win/win could make this work for the good of all. Why in the United States does someone always have to lose.Thats what I don't like about Bush-MCCain they want to win by having someone lose.

 

Civil unions was on the way to becoming National Law then Massachusetts had to screw it up. Civil Unions should be law of the land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good influential person who believes in win/win could make this work for the good of all. Why in the United States does someone always have to lose.Thats what I don't like about Bush-MCCain they want to win by having someone lose.

 

Civil unions was on the way to becoming National Law then Massachusetts had to screw it up. Civil Unions should be law of the land

 

Wasn't Mass using the term marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massachusetts uses the term marriage, but then, I believe every other state does for opposite-sex unions regardless of whether the marriage is conducted in a religious service or by a government official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Massachusetts uses the term marriage, but then, I believe every other state does for opposite-sex unions regardless of whether the marriage is conducted in a religious service or by a government official.

 

All government agencies should use the term civil union and leave marriage to religious institutions. That would go along way to settle the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck "changing the definition of marriage." :)

 

I think that change would also upset a lot of people--not getting a marriage license from the state? Also, there's a very vocal contingent opposed to official recognition of any same-sex unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck "changing the definition of marriage." :)

 

I think that change would also upset a lot of people--not getting a marriage license from the state? Also, there's a very vocal contingent opposed to official recognition of any same-sex unions.

 

If the service is performed by a religious instituion that uses the term marriage, use that, If it is a civil ceremony, use the term civil union.

 

I recognize there is a vocal contingent as well. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. I derive that belief from my religious views.

 

You're not gonna make everyone happy, but there is middle ground to be found. If the real issue is partner benefits, wills etc... those are secular concerns and can be acknowldged as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites