On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> I never really understood what the problem was with civil unions
> anyhow. It appears these are the same in law as a religious
> marriage. So the only distinction is that the religious element of
> marriage is taken away?
>
> What's the big deal? Forcing religions to accept gay marriage would
> amount to government interference in religious doctrine wouldn't it?
The state recognizes marriage in the U.S. Religions can say what they want, but unless the union is blessed by the state, it doesn't have legal force.
And no, they're not the same. The whole point of making a distinction, a la Obama and everyone else, is to make sure they're different - and lesser. Pretending that it's not separate and unequal is just liberal wank.
Me, I like being married, and wish the people that can't marry now, could. Sure, there are a lot of legal rights that should be separated from marital status. But, sentimentalist that I am, it's not all about legal rights - it's a social ritual, a public profession of serious attachment. Not to everyone's liking, I know.
Doug