I don't think the state should be involved in marriage.
If civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriage, then you have a difference without a distinction. It is simply silly. However, the case as it is now is not like that. Civil unions are massively different from marriage under the law, and this is not likely to change. It is oddly easier simply to get marriage rights to gay couples than it is to allow civil unions and make then identical to marriage. And even if you could make them identical, what exactly then is the point. Marriage in everything but name is marriage, so call it what it is.
On a couple points made by others:
The law of the land is very simple: Separate but equal is not equal. There is no way around this.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Last edited by Cardinal; 12-07-12 at 04:41 PM.
Last edited by RepublicanMcDuc; 12-07-12 at 05:15 PM.
I don't think the gov't should be involved in any way, shape, or form. The only thing the gov't should be involved in is a contract that is voluntarily entered into by any two adults, regardless of sex. This would be used to settle child custody disputes, property disputes, and settle the tax filing issue that is always brought up. The old Justice of the Peace marriages need to go away. Marriage should be conducted by churches and private entities, not by the gov't.
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson