reply to post by The Old American
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so my comment is not whether you should or shouldn't be in favor of changing Civil Union/Domestic Partners to
Marriage.
My comment is to your reasoning. I read what you wrote and to be honest it came across to me to be the stereotypical bigoted reason we hear gay
activists lay claim too. The first thought that came to my mind, is this guy for real or is he a plant?
Ultimately I concluded that it really didn't matter, because I believe you are right as much as you are wrong. First off, one does not have to be
against changing Civil Union/Domestic Partners to Marriage for religious reasons or bigoted reasons such as you expressed in your posting.
You really hit on the crucial point, that under the law marriage is in-fact nothing more than a contract, just as Civil Unions and Domestic Partners
are.
The simple fact is, the notion that calling the contract between homosexuals marriage or civil unions/domestic partnerships has nothing to do with
equal rights anymore than calling the sport football, football and baseball, baseball. These are words to describe something.
There is absolutely nothing wrong, unequal or discriminatory to have different terminology for different kinds of relationship contracts.
Discrimination would only exist if under the law, they were not treated the same.
Now I am not an expert on this topic to know whether or not there exists inequities, my opinion on the matter is solely based on the fact that this
has never been apart of the debate (inequities between the two types of contracts).
The debate has centered around the use of the word marriage, while framing the debate in the false notion of equality, since homosexuals have a
relationship contracts that grant them contract rights, that are just as valid under the law as marriage.
All this being stated, my issue with changing Marriage to include Civil Union/Domestic Partnership is the fact that the word/term Marriage has it's
origins in religion. To be clear, I am not talking about the union of two people, I am referring to the word marriage.
Marriage appeared in human history during the old testament period in Jews history. Marriage is apart of a religious practice, rite with religious
implications. Marriage as defined by religion, explains a relationship between a man and a woman before God.
So my issue with changing the word Marriage to include gay unions is that what is really being asked is for the government to change religious
terminology of a religious rite!
My perspective of this is no. I belief that this violates the separation clause of the government's authority under the constitution.
If it is in-fact the agenda of gay activists, that all relationships should have have one terminology to define the civil contract between individual,
I would argue that it makes more sense to change the legal contract word Marriage to be Civil Union and/or Domestic Partners. Not the other way
around.
<3 <3 <3
