Quote: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.

No I understand all that.

 

What I do not understand is WHY a separate term is needed. If it's not for appeasement of religious then what is the point? If it's a compromise than what exactly is the compromise? This is what it sounds like to me and maybe this will help us understand each other:

 

"Hey, we created a new thing so now you can get married but not really because we have decided to give ownership of the term marriage to religious except you can still say you are married and other people will say it also but really you are not and are technically still excluded from a term that is universally used for the new thing we created."

 

I combined a response to both you and JIB right there. I know you both have similar but slightly different positions so I wanted to clarify that. 

---