"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
That our government should NOT be involved in "marriage" sounds good, even great.. But man (most of us) has a brain and he must use it. The marriage is very much a legal contract between people, or a man and a woman ( as I prefer), and because of this, government MUST be involved.
So, lets break marriage into two parts , one the contract between two or more parties and two, the religious end of things...the vows and the ceremony. The homosexuals can be "united as one" by city hall (whatever that is , I am a country boy) and the more fortunate can have both ( one and two), automatically..... And the "gays" can also have both if they can find a "gay" church....
No religious institution should be forced into any part of this, but, our government is a different story ...They have a duty, a responsibility, to the people, ALL OF THE PEOPLE !
The vote was "other".
I'm all for equality, but I am certainly NOT for specific groups getting "special privileges" such as being able to change the wording on marriage certificates because of . . . . ??? I don't even know why.
Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
If they want to change the concept of marriage to suit them, then I would vote for civil unions. That way everyone gets what they want. If they want a "marriage" then that is fine too, but if they want some special considerations, then civil unions it is. And NO marriage is NOT just a contract between 2 people. It is MUCH more than that.
No more "Wife and Husband" in a LEGAL sense
There's nothing stopping the words from being used in a soceital/cultural/private enterprise sense what so ever.
Just like the word marriage wouldn't magically vanish simply because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore. Those that want to call themselves "married" still could, those that want to get "married" in the eyes of their church still can, etc.
Just like today a gay couple can still call themselves "Husband" or "wife" and "married" even if the state doesn't recognize it, they just can't say it in a legal fashion.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.