Quote:I don't think that's what JIB is doing. I'll try to avoid putting words in his mouth, but I think he's talking about privatizing the term marriage. Privatizing it does not necessarily mean surrendering it to the right. It wouldn't stop anyone from marrying any couple, and I think you'd find that many, many people legally allowed to do so would continue marrying same-sex couples. It would also not force someone who has strong beliefs against same-sex marriage to perform one, but those two people would still have all the tax and legal benefits of a civil union even if they didn't want to go somewhere else to get married.

 

There are places of worship that are LGBTQ-inclusive and will marry same-sex couples. You can do some research on that yourself if you're interested. I'm inclined not to go any further because of the religion rule.

 

You are pretty much right in what I am saying.  I guess "privatizing" the word marriage is the right way to put it.  I'm looking at the term from a legal standpoint and saying that in a social standpoint, any civil union can be referred to with whatever term a couple wants to use.  Take the term "marriage" off of legal documents and change it to "civil union" is a compromise.  It then becomes a "social issue" rather than a "legal issue".

 

Think of it this way.  I personally refuse to call Bruce Jenner by his chosen new name or refer to him as a she.  That's a social thing not a legal thing.

---