> >I make this distinction and it is pretty clear to me: "marriage" is
> >for religion, "civil unions" are a specific type of contract
> >recognized by the State.
>
> I've been married twice, and neither time was a church involved. The
> first time was by a city clerk at the Manhattan municipal building;
> the second, by a judge in a French restaurant. Marriage is a matter
> of the state, and clergy are licensed to perform the task, but the
> certificate issued is a secular instrument.
OK, well I was trying to use semantics to frame this in a way that it could be used to persuade the Xtian right. The marriage would be the commitment ceremony, be it secular or religious, but the civil union is the thing recognized by the State. So my argument would be, if the Xtian right wants the State out of their Churches, then they are free to conduct marriages how they see fit without ANY gov't involvement (including legal recognition). But if any family unit wants legal recognition (including but not limited to hetero couples who may or may not have a ceremony, which may or may not be secular) then they need a civil union. IOW, just getting "married" in a church by some clergy wouldn't any longer be enough to get legal recognition.
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
-Buckaroo Banzai