posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:10 AM
Originally posted by seabag
It absolutely has a religious foundation….as did our country when founded. I don’t understand why we can’t have civil unions with ALL of
the so-called “perks” of marriage from a legal standpoint without the title “marriage”? The “marriage” part is what’s dividing everyone
and creating the rift IMO.
Why can’t you call it something else?
Do what you want but don't call it “marriage.”
Actually, from a historic standpoint, "marriage" was more about the ownership of property (the term property extending to the wife, in many cases) and
was codified to secure the legal rights of the owner of said property upon conjoinment.
As a result, all those "perks" gained by marriage are currently codified as being solely
conferable under the aegis of a legally
recognized "marriage"; and are not availaable to those in "civil unions", unless specifically stated by (additional
In short, the problem lies in the fact that to give same sex couples the same rights, the same "perks", as married heterosexual couples currently
enjoy, automatically, by virtual of their "married" status, you would have to amend each and every law, at both Federal and State levels, that
referenced martital status as a qualification, to include
A daunting, and expensive
It is/would be a far simpler task to merely extend the legal definition of the term "marriage" to All
couples, hetero- and same-sex,
thus automaticaly making the laws requiring "marriage as a qualification, applicable to all.
In the Law, Words DO
edit on 21-2-2013 by Bhadhidar because: Update