Quote:This idea just seem so convoluted as to be bordering on silly.

 

All the hoops and leaps or we could just keep it as marriage and people can stop getting upset about it. One seems simpler than the other. 

I don't think it's convoluted at all. Nothing changes except the government term for the word. As it is today, in the eyes of the law, a couple is legally married when they have the marriage license signed in front of an official who is able to sign it. The only real change in the process would be making the forming of a civil union even easier, as instead of an officiant, it could simply be completed in front of a notary if the couple chose.

 

Other than removing the need for an officiant if a civil union is all that's desired, nothing except the word for the government-recognized legal bond changes.

 

I should also point out that most "civil union advocates" are trumpeting the idea of separate-but-equal terminology, with civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals. That, imo, is an unacceptable solution because it does discriminate. The concept of making marriage an optional additional step to a civil union for everyone (and I do not care if people linked only by a civil union choose to call themselves married) takes government out of the religion business and uses a purely secular term for what should be a purely secular process.

---