Marriage should be the sole authority of the church, and the state should have nothing to do with it. The have the right to make it into whatever is in line with their doctrine.
By the same token, however, civil unions should be the sole authority of the state. Since it wouldn't be called "marriage", they can define a civil union however they like.
Church marriages without state recognition carries no legal rights or benefits. State unions would not be recognized by the church. Everyone wins.
You know, I actually agree with you. However, as marriage has been so ingrained as a civil thing, it might be difficult to go back and undo all of that. I mean, neither my husband nor myself are religious, and we went to a JP, yet we are still married. So while I agree with you in the most esoteric sense, I'm not sure how practicable it could really be.
When I read the first sentence, I was appalled that you'd post something like that... But then I read the rest. I hope that others who read this understand that it's satire; very tongue in cheek. Besides, I know that you're very open minded, so I know you wouldn't post stuff like real protest against gay marriage.
Heh. That was actually my first thought when I saw it posted by one of my friends. I read the first sentence and was like, "What the hell?" But then I kept reading and it was awesome.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
By the same token, however, civil unions should be the sole authority of the state. Since it wouldn't be called "marriage", they can define a civil union however they like.
Church marriages without state recognition carries no legal rights or benefits. State unions would not be recognized by the church. Everyone wins.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment