So since your marriage is recognized as valid both under the status quo and in the change that you mention, what do you have to gain from this? Since you cannot explain to me what I have to gain from the change, maybe you'll stand a better chance of defining what's in it for you.but making those that don't agree with same sex marriage "pay for their opposition" and be forced to do something they view as counter to their beliefs.
Bonus question! Why do you think you are legally obliged to recognize marriages you don't feel are legitimate?
"Unmarry" means to annul or divorce so the argument really makes no sense. The IRS is under no obligation to provide tax benefits to a couple simply because the state they live in happens to classify their relationship in a certain way."Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it’s a violation of states’ rights for the federal government to then “unmarry” those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."
There are many examples where the IRS does not recognize State designations - child dependents, business classifications, not-for-profits, etc. Are we to believe the IRS is also emancipating children, dissolving businesses and forcing non-profits to make a buck because the tax code makes different classifications than the State?
When you say "you can't explain it because you wouldn't understand it" is a clear sign you've lost the argument. In fact, thats utterly ridiculous. Perhaps you can't explain it because I've already nailed your position. You don't want equal right, you want those that oppose same sex marriage to be punished for it. If thats the case, explain it.
As far as your bonus, I'm not legally obliged to recognize marriage at all as I offer nothing that would require the recognition in the first place so the question is irrelevant.
Religion doesn't own the word based on what he proposed.Why does religion get to own that word? I want to own that word.
No one owns the word is the point, including government.
You can say you're married all day long, you can make an organization that does so based on tradition and witness and ceremony, on an upside down cross, or a rightside up one.
It didn't assign any authority over marriage to anyone, I think was the point.
It was a proposal to remove the word Marriage, from government.
Again, that does not "give it" to religions.