dd- you're right, and I acknowledge that. That's why I'm suggesting the use of civil unions for all non-religious marriages. I don't think that you can discuss "marriage" without religion- it is a religious term, and I think that's what's bothering people. That's what's bothering me. Marriages by the state in general bother me. Marriages are historically a union before God, meant to keep men from running willy nilly through hoardes of nubile women. I am by no means an overly religious person, and I'm not happy with religion at ALL lately (my family went to church for Christmas--I stayed home and cooked), but at some base level it gnaws at me. I understand what the (mostly financial) implications of "marriage" mean, as well as the symbloic, and I wouldn't take a stand against joint ownership of houses, pensions, health benefits, etc. Maybe I'm old fashioned (at 28?), but it bothers me.
For me, it's an internal struggle between a pair of evils. Either you endorse the (by most major religions, anyway--screw the Anglicans and universalists) morally wrong concept of gay marriage, or you consciously decide to commit the sin of discrimination.
Damn my Catholic education!
-I'm not one, but they do have nice schools...
-Doug
ps do-do-dotie-oh, do-do-dotie-oh... he got THE LAST DODO
(checked the site)
