My thoughts about marriage v civil unions..

[SoCalDem]

The church (ANY church) should be allowed,encouraged..whatever to perfrom the religious ceremony that the church requires for the marriage to be sanctified..........BUT.....


the "civil" recognition of a "pair bond" should have NO relationship to the religious unless THEY want to..

I call this the "pick a partner" approach..(for purposes of LEGAL implications)

The religious ceremony WOULD cover this...AND the civil one would as well..

If you are a single adult person, you should be able to PICK a person...male/female...related or otherwise.. <remember this is not necessarily a "love match".. It most likely will be, but is not necessary>


For instance..let's say you are a 45 yr old, never married, never wanted to be married single guy and you have a sister who has no medical insurance and depends on YOU for her support...why couldn't you "pick her " to be your "survivor" or to be on your medical plan??



Leave the "Love" stuff to the individuals involved.. The "state" needs to stay the hell out of it.. ENTIRELY !!!

The whole thing is about the legal ramifications.. The freepies are greedy and mean.. They have cornered the market on "what's right"..and they are DEAD WRONG

My 2 cents :)

[expatriot]

1. 'civil union' is just a term to placate the archaic...

religious institutions and their country bumpkin hanger-ons.

It reminds me of the old English woman who thought foreigners were agents of the Devil because they did not use the words in her Bible when they spoke. "Water is water!" she exclaimed, "how dare these heathens call it 'eau' or 'agua!'."

[never cry wolf]

2. i think your

2 cents were well spent. you are right on it.

[sweetheart]

3. contracts for child rearing

My view is that there should be no binding contract like "marriage". More precisely that people who are roommates and form economic unions are EXCACTLY THAT... nothing else... the state has no say to make more than that.

When a child is involved, a contract to rear the child and the associated responsibility / property state needs civil law protection...

Marriage is a redundant institution today, and if people want to be together or apart, no paper contract is going to change that... rather it is merely a contract of business in a partnership.

Methinks marriage and business are very similar... both are artificial instituions for economic purposes... as love cannot be legislated... get the law out of the bedroom and out of my heart.

All the old crap about marriage is obsolete and should be ended... people should fuck who they like, and even that has no bearing on a contract for business relations.

[Clete]

4. Here is the truth.

Religious institutions are always trying to insert their moral code into civil law. This is why we have to insist on the separation of church and state more than ever. Religious tenents should never influence civil law. This actually can backfire on those same religious nutcakes that are trying to impose their religious ideas on society at large. It could be another religion prevails. If the Trojan horse of religion is allowed into the halls of government, the precedent will then be set.