Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
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.
|
All that follows is my personal opinion even if it is dogmatic.
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.
.