mdchachi said:Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone.
I didn't know that. So why are religious leaders or extremist so agitated about now in the States ? Civil marriage shouldn't be a problem for them, as it is not connected to religion (oh, damn it, I forgot that the US does not separate church and state :angryfire: )
For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)?
Excellent point ! The future of our society lies in such reasoning. Marriage is an anticated institution. People should be able to live (that doesn't mean have sex or children - still another debate) with whoever they want and enjoy the same legal protection as "regular couples". I mean, some people can be sterile, castrated (still lots of them in India) or just don't like sex or don't want to have children. Wht couldn't they live with a friend or family member and share the benefits social and medical care, like a gay civil union ?
But very religious or conservative people will never understand such logic of their lifetime.
--
BTW, great post Rachel, I completely agree !