- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,769
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Your question is erroneous in its assumption that a marriage isn't already a civil union domestic partnership from government's codified perspective.So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"
As codified by government, marriage, to government, historically is a civil union domestic partnership that is for "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Your question contains an oxymoron that invalidates it -- there never was a time-honored cultural tradition of prohibition of interracial marriage.Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?
The prohibition of interracial marriages occurred in small isolated pockets throughout humanity's global history and were never part of the definition of marriage.
Regardless, at no time was the fundamental "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" ever anything but that in a marriage, and isolated pockets of violations did not have any meaning in the matter.
Again, meaningless.Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?
You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
As long as the participants are "a man and a woman as husband and wife", whether inter-racially or not, it's a marriage.
When the participants are no longer a man and a woman, but two men or two women, it's simply no longer a marriage.
Thus, in the interest of making everyone happy, the latter should be called a homarriage, and afforded the same recognition/treatment by government and private enterprise as any form of civil union domestic partnership.