richardhutnik said:
The problem you run into here is that the meaning, purpose and demands of what make a marriage a marriage takes shape in a religious context. By trying to have the same thing in a purely secular context is going to have people arguing for what they feel are their "rights", and that can lead to all sorts of things that undermine the nature of marriage. Because people argued they had a right to a divorce, then the concept of "til death due you part" got thrown out the window. Marriage isn't going to work as a concept so long as people keep trying to ground it in rights. Marriage is the idea of mutual sacrifice for one another, in love. The belief that the concept of marriage comes from a transcendent being, whose ways are to be followed, elevates marriage to be more, and drives people to be better. I would say to stop fighting to get society to redefine what marriage is and find something else that would be more viable elsewhere. I would say to redefine everything as civil unions, for SECULAR purposes and be done with it. |
Absolutely, making everything a civil union in regards to the legality of it is the easiest way out. If you want to call it a marriage and have associated religious rituals etc, then thats fine. If you want to call it a marriage and you aren't religious, thats fine, if you start a religion that enshrines gay marriage as holy thats fine. It wouldn't matter because it'd all just be a civil union in the eyes of the law. The religious connotations shouldn't matter legally, they should only matter to the people involved on a religious level if the people want to define it that way.