I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[DanaC]

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.

[infinite monkey]

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*

[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.

[Lamplighter]

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.
.

[infinite monkey]

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.

[classicman]

Agreed. My point was the terminology.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[classicman]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

I never said I personally believed that. I repeatedly said ....

Originally Posted by classicman

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

Is that not your personal belief?

Originally Posted by classicman

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"

I should back up from equating them, but you take umbrage when I attribute to you the belief that they are different?

To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.

These "some" only seem to be making the distinction when it comes to gays. I don't seem to remember a drumbeat about redefining marriage when it comes to marriages by justices of the peace. This isn't about non-religious marriages, it's about gays.

Bullshit. You live in DC. They're as common as cockroaches.

None of them are mine, and the ones who take notice of DC residents usually only do so to overturn DC law as a political stunt.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Is that not your personal belief?

NO IT IS NOT! FERFUXACHE - ARE YOU BLIND?

I should back up from equating them, but you take umbrage when I attribute to you the belief that they are different?

Yes I do, I have clearly said what I think.
Dude, are you high or something?

Did you miss this part?

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.It matters not to me PERSONALLY.

[ZenGum]

The way you two are going on ... are you married to EACH OTHER?

[Lamplighter]

[classicman]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The way you two are going on ... are you married to EACH OTHER?

If thats the case, I demand a divorce!

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[ZenGum]

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.

Naturally the Churchy-types freaked.


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.