[ZTWsquared]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 03:49 PM Wrote:Therefore, if gays have access to civil union, they are equal under the eyes of the law.

I have no problem with gay civil union.  I will however not consider homosexuals to be "married" as I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Clear enough?

Edit:  Wikipedia Link to good info.

Link
[right][snapback]176801[/snapback][/right]

The first paragraph in your linked doc makes it pretty clear why civil union isn't the same as marriage.

But if you want to discuss this in terms of semantics, consider this: marriage in a church without a marriage license issued by the government is basically meaningless and unrecognizied in our society.

On the other hand, a marriage with a license at city hall with no religious sanction whatsoever is recognized around the world as a legitimate marriage.

So why do you think that in today's society the term "marriage" should be owned by a collection of religious groups to the exclusion of everyone else? The end result of the history and evolution of marriage in western society is that it is effectively only an instrument of government. Even in a church ceremony it is the government papers that get signed.

The fact is that whether you're straigt or gay, you need a "marriage" license to be considered legally married -- and I don't know of any place where they call it a "civil union" license.

And when you get a marriage license and go through the process at city hall, they proclaim you to be "married."

Change the term if you want, but change it for everybody. But as it stands right now there is no choice but to call the result of what happens at city hall a marriage.