highwaystar101 said:
zexen_lowe said:
highwaystar101 said:
Perhaps I should explain a little more. In many places civil unions are brought in to give homosexual couples the same rights and privileges from the government as married heterosexual couples, except for a few cases where it is open to heterosexual and homosexual people. Essentially my idea would be to recognise all relationships as civil unions so that we all get the same rights and privelages, regardless of sexual orientation.
If you want to get married, you need to apply for civil union to be recognised as a couple. And then if you want to get married a religious organisation working independently from the government will recognise your relationship, but it will not have anything to with the government. The marriage will just be recognised by your church.
|
That's exactly how it works (now) here, only that the civil union figure is called "civil marriage". Religious marriages can be performed at will, but only by previously civil married couples, and of course, it has no validity whatsoever to the gov't. I don't see where the difference is, at all
|
Yeah, it does work like that in some countries, but not all of them. It just seems like the logical way it should work though.
|
Well, I don't know, we've had civil marriages since 1888, I haven't ever compared religious to civil marriages since they're totally different things...in fact the former requires the latter, hence why I don't understand why religious people said in the debate that surged previous to the promulgation of the law about the religiousness of marriage...when marriage (the one that counts for the state) hasn't had anything to do with religion since almost 120 years here
