Quote:I guess you still don't get it.  Change the legal document from a "marriage license" to a "civil union license" and it solves the whole problem which is the premise of this thread.  If gay people want to call their civil union a marriage, then they are certainly free to do so, and at the same time, people can have a traditional marriage and call it the same.  What don't you get?

I get where you're coming from and, actually, I agree. The government's biggest misstep was legalizing the term "marriage". IMO, the right verdict by the Supreme Court would have been that government-sanctioned marriage is illegal going forward. Governments may only issue certificates for civil unions to any two people, and all federal code (particularly as it relates to taxes) would be changed to address that. The term "marriage" should be restricted to the private sector.

 

JIB's called this one. One side of the argument sees only the religious connotations of marriage, ignoring the legal aspects of the term. The other side has latched onto the legal meaning of the term, and believes it to be a right afforded to everyone as a result. Short of the Supreme Court taking government out of the business of marriage, the verdict that came down was the second-best thing, strictly imo.

 

The polygamy, bestiality and "marrying a car" arguments are total bull, and I think those making them know that.

---