Quote:
Originally Posted by Crapshoot
No, its on you. Religion does not own the right to the word marriage, and it is folly to pretend so. If people are offended by two people choosing to get married , the onus is on them to get over it. No church needs to marry two gay people - but the idea that the church retains some sort of veto right over the definition of the word marriage and its legal ramifications is silly.
|
What's on me? I support gay marriage.
I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief. As such, they will not support equal rights for gays when this term is used to define a homosexual union.
It's likely that it will be much more difficult to acquire nation-wide rights for gays without compromising a little here, as the Christian fundamentalist segment of the population holds significant sway over this country's laws.
If a little change in the code from "marriage" to "civil union" is made, and the end result is that equal rights are given to both hetero and homosexual unions, religious or not, everywhere in the US, is that not a worthy compromise to make?