I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. The financial and governmental advantages and responsibilities of civil "marriage" should be available to all who choose to pair up to help get through life and (if desired) rear children.
If a couple wants to go through the religious foldirol as well, so be it. But that choice should have NO bearing on the above. In California, it doesn't. You get all rights and privileges of marriage here even if you don't go through a religious ceremony. I had an atheist/unitarian officiate over my first marriage, a clerk over the 2nd. I probably won't have a 3rd unless it's financially necessary. Of course, those rights are still unconstitutionally denied certain minority groups. You're right, there was a document somewhere....let me think.... Ah, I've Got It! The Constitution of the United States -- First Amendment... Derek Kalweit wrote: >> Anyhoo, marriage is a financial arrangement to take advantage of federal >> and state tax breaks and perks for married people. Any other >> connotation is irrelevant to the discussion of housing... >> > > Marriage is actually a religious thing that our government has been > anti-constitutional in accepting into law. The government should not > recognize any religious sacrament either hetro or homo.... I think > it's in one of those amendments there... separation of something... > > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
