julifolo (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} julifolo) wrote, |
The trouble is
"Separate but equal" hasn't worked in those states that have "civil unions" rather than "civil marriage equity".
The reason why there's a distinction between "civil marriage" and "church wedding" is that "marriage" is *both* secular and regigious. And, at least for christianity, marriage started out not being a religious matter (weddings were done on the east porch, not inside a church).
So I'm not in favor of governments getting out of the "marriage" business. Rather, like many other words in the dictionary, there are multiple meanings.
Thanks for you're sympathy. I'm still badly hurting and fragile.
"Separate but equal" hasn't worked in those states that have "civil unions" rather than "civil marriage equity".
The reason why there's a distinction between "civil marriage" and "church wedding" is that "marriage" is *both* secular and regigious. And, at least for christianity, marriage started out not being a religious matter (weddings were done on the east porch, not inside a church).
So I'm not in favor of governments getting out of the "marriage" business. Rather, like many other words in the dictionary, there are multiple meanings.
Thanks for you're sympathy. I'm still badly hurting and fragile.
