On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "People are protesting for civil contracts - the name of those contracts, > according to the government, is 'marriage'" > > Ehhh. Semantics. >
It might be. But if we can't call it one thing for heterosexuals and something different for homosexuals. 'Separate but equal' simply does not work. My thought on it is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. The word should be stricken from all government forms. I am OK with the government being concerned about civil unions, though. If a couple wants to get married, they go to their church, temple, etc. If they want the government to acknowledge that union, the need to go to the municipality, county, state office to fill out paper work. Two separate processes for two separate 'unions'. The problem in this debate is that the government and religious institutions use the same word 'marriage' to describe two different things. It does not help that in many religious marriage ceremonies, the priest, rabbi, minister, etc. also handle what could be considered the 'civil' side of the paperwork in completing the marriage license. -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:356844 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
