How is that different from Catholicism or Islam? The only difference is that we are not used to people of Mormon faith distancing themselves from the fundamentalist level while we are used to it with Catholicism or Islam.

I had a couple of really good friends through my gaming guild who were mormons. Years ago, but they were lovely people.

I don't really see them as being that diffferent to many other Christian denominations. I remember having a conversation once with Talon (one of the mormons) about the notion in their reading of creation, that the tribe that turned from God and were cast out and marked by black complexion were the origins of black people...

I considered that racist. He considered it ancient history. Since his wife was a black lass it seemed unlikely he saw that history as in any way relevant to his world today.

At this time, this is not a MAJOR issue to me. We have MUCH BIGGER problems to deal with.
Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

Gays have just as much right to go through a shitty divorce as everyone else.

LIke marriage is so special and unattainable and hard to do. People hop from one to another like they're riding the rails to PerfectLand. Pffffft.

*shrugs*

Gah - communication breakdown ...
To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.

I wasn't directing toward you, c-man. It was really just an off-handed comment on my part.

You know, my tongue-in-cheek observations, for which I am disdained at best, ignored at worst.

Such brilliance is not for normal human consumption.

;)

All that follows is my personal opinion even if it is dogmatic. :king:

If marriage is a "religious contract", then should it be a matter of federal law
providing for - or protecting - some citizens, but not others?

If one agrees that separate is not equal, then the "civil unions"
are only the current step in the direction of equal civil rights for everyone.
Anyone believing they are equal, essentially owns the burden of proof
to justify and to rectify each and every instance of inequality.

It would be easier to change the word "marriage" throughout our laws
to mean only the religious contract within any given religion,
and to have all legal aspects of "marriage license"
changed to words meaning something akin to "civil union".

In any case, whether one believes a candidate will separate his "religion" or beliefs
from his "elected office" is simply a matter of each person's own judgment
of the candidate... no rules to be followed, just personal perception.

Isn't it odd that we don't usually even consider such an issue
with a candidate whose religion is similar to our own.
.

How are they different from the government's perspective, ie the perspective from which we should care at all what any politician says about it? Any difference would be discriminatory, as far as I can tell.

Agreed. My point was the terminology.

If they mean the same thing, then why would the government have one word for straight marriage and another for gay marriage?

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"
Civil marriages are not sanctioned under religious law, marriage is.
Thats the difference I was referring to.
If you have an issue with the government ask your representative, I have.

What's the difference, from the government's perspective? People married by a justice of the peace are currently married, from the government's perspective, without any religious sanction. Under the regime of a politician who supports civil unions but not gay marriage, gays married by a church would still get a civil union.

So, again, I ask you. What's the difference, from the government's perspective, between marriage and civil union?

If there's no difference, then there's no need for different words. If there is a difference, then it's discrimination.

In France, they brough in Civil Unions to appease the gay lobby, or so they thought.

Last I heard, around 30% of heterosexual couples were getting civil unions and bypassing the Church completely. :lol:

Naturally the Churchy-types freaked.

:2cents:
ALL marriages should be civil unions. Anyone wishing to do a church ritual is free to do so, but this should be irrelevant to the legal status of the union.

I was just stating the fact that the terminology is an issue for many people.
Personally, I think that any union - marriage or whatever between two humans
should have the same legal/governmental rights as all the rest whether they be gay,
straight, bi, trans ... wtfe. (No Hobos though) It matters not to me PERSONALLY.
So again, I reply - If you have an issue with the government's perspective ask your representative.

ETA - Sorry Zen. Missed your post while composing mine.

I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things. But the only distinction you have made is religious sanction, which should not be, and is not currently, a distinction under the law.

When a politician says they don't support marriage for gays, but they do support civil unions, and you applaud their making that distinction, I am asking you what that means for the law. Which is the perspective that matters when a politician says it. He's not running for pope.

Huntsman (in this instance, but also Obama, among others) said he didn't support "redefining marriage", but that is exactly what he would have to do if he supported a government policy that people who were married by a justice of the peace are no longer married, as Lamplighter and ZenGum suggest.

If, on the other hand, he wants to keep current marriage law in place for straight people, but make up a new class of marriage for gay people, but with a different name, that sounds like discrimination to me.