8 ms·
By this logic you also advocate replacing any state or federal use of the term "marriage" with "civil union" for heterosexual couples as well, and leave "marria
by ja2ke 18y ago
By this logic you also advocate replacing any state or federal use of the term "marriage" with "civil union" for heterosexual couples as well, and leave "marriage" as a term exclusively to religious groups, then?
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoI don't have an opinion one way or another on that one. Since the gist of my argument was "let's not fight over something we can solve" perhaps we just add the term "civil union" wherever the term marriage appears. Or perhaps we have a constitutional ammendment that makes the two phrases equal. For instance, I don't think you could go back in the historical record and change terms. The answer to that question may be based on how you make laws. Another poster made a comment about 3 or more people in a union. I believe this follows naturally as well from an extension of the term "marriage". Things like multiple partners seem just fine in the 21st century. At least to me, but I'm a libertarian. Since the term seems to be opening up, as a hacker I say make the new definition in one place to be equal to anywhere else the term "marriage" was used.