Video: March for Marriage

This is the story you didn’t see: The positive story of the March for Marriage in Washington, DC

 

YouTube Preview Image

  • Bill S

    I think it would make more sense if people looked at marriage as the commitment that two people make to one another, regardless of whether they make their vows in a church before a priest or minister or anywhere else and a civil union as the change of status that they register with the government. If same sex marriage were against their religion, the couple could not be married by the Church but they could enter into a civil union sanctioned by the government and make vows to one another in some manner that others would not have to recognize as a wedding.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      So what you are advocating is a two-tier legal situation for marriage, one that is entirely a civil matter and binding by law, the other that is entirely a church matter and binding only by conscience?

      Do I understand that?

      Other countries have something somewhat like this and have had for a very long time. However, here in America what we have always had is the situation where marriage services are legally binding, if they are performed by someone who is licensed by the state to do so. In many states, common law marriages are also valid. What constitutes a common law marriage varies, but it usually involves some form of legal assent that a marital union exists on the part of the parties. Filing a joint tax return saying they are married, or putting one person on the other’s insurance as a spouse would suffice to create the legal bond of matrimony.

      The key here is that all these things occur within the legal definition of marriage, which has always been between one man and one woman. I believe that is what you are talking about.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Oddly enough, Bill S., this is exactly what I said in 2004. Right before a gay activist punched me for being a bigot for not allowing the government to have control over the meaning of the word “marriage”.

  • Bill S

    I guess I am advocating civil unions for same sex couples that won’t offend religious sensibilities. Same sex couples would not refer to their partners as husband or wife but simply as partner or mate. Sex would not be publicly condoned or condemned. It would be a non-issue. All the tax and insurance issues would be the same as with married couples and any two people could form a civil union that would facilitate tax and insurance advantages that are currently confined to married couples. That would leave the definition of marriage intact.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Unfortunately, Bill, this doesn’t quite address the main real complaint that the SSM advocates have.

      To do it right, we’d need to also have civil unions for heterosexuals. Then we could continue with civil unions for polysexuals, pedosexuals, pseudosexuals and anything else somebody might come up with.

      When I was younger, I thought it was a good idea. The homosexual SSM activists have convinced me that they don’t deserve it.

  • Bill S

    “When I was younger, I thought it was a good idea. The homosexual SSM activists have convinced me that they don’t deserve it.”

    I feel bad that you were punched by an activist. It never came up for a vote in Massachusetts. It was just passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

    • Theodore Seeber

      I’ve been punched by advocates of various things before, my “harsh tone” seems to invite it. But it usually turns me against the very thing they’ve been advocating for.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X