and that's my position exactly, the federal or state government has no business recognizing a religious ceremony. The only thing that the government should recognize is a written legal cohabitation contract, that conveys the ability to mingle fiduciary responsibility and allows for insurance coverage and legal responsibility in the event of emergency.
If a church doesn't want to perform the ceremony then they don't have to, but it won't have any legal standing either way. IMO: if you're against allowing a gay or straight couple to have the same rights then it's bigotry.. Sam wrote: > Wasn't there a thread about this last week? > I got into this last year I think and people here get real nasty about it. > > Basically, marriage is a religious event and if you want to change > something, change the name the government uses and leave the term > marriage to the religion. Let everyone have the same rights and call > it a civil union. > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "I don't consider someone against same sex marriage as anti-gay. I'm >> sure some are, but I believe most aren't." >> >> 'splain? >> >> If the government would take it's proper stance on the marriage >> ceremony, then this would be a non-issue, how is this anything other >> than simple bigotry? >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280567 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
