"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[robvalue]

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

Ok, RR. I'll ask this question specifically of you since I've never seen you answer it when I ask it generally. Would you consider a change to civil unions as the only legal form of marriage-like status? If you want all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage" you have to have a civil union (automatically granted to all who are married when the law takes affect), removing all legal power from a church marriage. In short, get a civil union for all the legal stuff, a church marriage for the "in the eyes of gawd" stuff and let people choose if they want one, the other or both. Because as long as a secular government has the power to marry people, denying them the right to marry whomever they choose is a violation of their rights.

Ah, of course. I forgot about that phrase. That could be the "new" version I referred to in my PS. CUs could have all the legal power, and marriage could just be ceremonial. I see no problem with that, in theory.

I should add that a church ceremonial marriage already doesn't have any legal power; a secular legal document being optionally included is all that actually matters. [I realize on reflection that you already implied this]