But I said I favored state-sanctioned civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriages for them.
I caught you saying (more or less) this way at the beginning of the topic. I thought I was in full agreement with you. Then you obscured your position with a bunch of (IMO) other blather.
The state should only concern itself with civil unions, and the rights, obligations, etc. of all those contracts should be identical regardless of any gender considerations.
It's probably been covered (many times?) upthread, but how do you define "civil union" vs. how do you define "marriage"? Are you just offended that the state uses the term "marriage", because you think that term should be reserved for religious ceremonies?
Moose
ADDED BY EDIT: It seems the above questions are pretty well covered by RRhain's review at
message 244. Hoot Mon apparently thinks that the term "marriage" be reserved for a male/female union, as sanctioned by a church. In other words, only churches do "marriages" and churches only marry different gender couples. Alas, I think there already are churches doing same gender "marriages".
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
™ Version 4.2
