the point of the article is not that marrage is religious or state... it is too close to define, what he wants is a clear definition between a civil union(called a marriage) and a religious union(called a marriage)... i think he has a very good point... im not at all for or against gay marriage... its not my battle, however i do think that non married couples should be able to have the same benifits as married ones wether the couple is hetero, homo or some other crazy sexual thing i havnt even heard of... but once you do that, when is a couple intitled to such a union, and how would one disolve such a thing?
Last edited by animosity; 03-22-2004 at 11:01 AM..
|