Reply #31: You're still missing the main difference... [View All]

[livinginphotographs]

That tends to get drowned out in false accusations of not being in favor of gay marriage/civil union/whatever.

Marriage is a religious institution. I for one could care less what marriages churches recognize or not.

Civil unions are a legal institution, and heterosexuals currently have this on the federal level. The civil union is what gives a married heterosexual couple all those federal benefits. If we were to extend those benefits to homosexual couples, they would have a federal civil union. What's wrong with that?

For example: both of my parents are atheists. They were married by a judge. Since my dad was raised Catholic and my mother Methodist, some Catholic churches wouldn't recognize their marriage because it would be considered interfaith. Also, my dad had been divorced before, so still more Catholic churches wouldn't have recognized the marriage.

Did they care? No. Did they still get federal benefits? Yes. Were they married? Not technically, no, since there was no religious ceremony involved. Did they have a civil union? Yes, and they got all the same benefits as those married in churches, regardless of what it was called.

Personally, I think the argument should be made that because of separation of church and state, the govt should not be involved in who can or cannot get "married" (since that's a religious institution), but should allow two people, whatever their gender, to enter civil unions with all the legal benefits that most people associate with "marriage."

Flame away... :ducks: