Justin24 said:
They are marriage but in political terms there called Civil Unions. Even in San Francisco ( a very liberal city) they call them civil unions.
What tends to bother me about talk like this is that, somehow, we're supposed to placate the most conservative of religious belief systems in this country, while ignoring the fact that some religious denominations do believe in gay marriage.
Even then, it also ignores the fact that many people carry religious beliefs independent of institutional groupthink.
What I would prefer most of all is consistency. France has de-facto civil unions for heterosexuals, while maintaining the name "marriage." That is, for the state to recognize ANY marriage, a ceremony must be held in front of a civil justice of the peace. If you want a religious ceremony, then go ahead...go to your church. But it does not, under any circumstances, have legal authority. As such, those religiously-minded French have two "marriage ceremonies."
However, if Americans refuse to acknowledge that "marriage" has both a religious and civil aspect, then I want the name, "civil union," to be used for ALL state recognition of any couples, heterosexual or homosexual. And, like France, if a couple wants legal recognition, they should have to have two ceremonies: a legally binding one with a civil justice of the peace and a ceremonial one with the religious authority of your choice. The Catholic Church already has an attitude like this. If a Catholic couple does not have a ceremony approved by a Catholic priest, then, in the eyes of the church, you're not married. Sure, you might have a legal marriage, but, in the eyes of the Catholic church, you're still unmarried.
Of course, this isn't about fairness or consistency. It's about a bunch of religious nuts wanting control, asserting "heterosexual supremacism."
Melon