If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace
is
a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use
the
same word to describe two very different things.
$.02,
Joe F.

Exactly what we should be looking at. All the unions we currently call
marriage in this country are actually civil unions. In some cases the
various states have allowed religious leaders the authority to perform said
unions and , in doing so, sanction such unions under the auspices of that
particular religion.

Here in FL, a notary public can legally perform such a legal union and have
it recognized as a marriage. I have no idea how many weddings are performed
in Las Vegas by non religious people. Even the majority of Christians still
accept these as legal "marriages." We need to take a stab at changing the
language we work under in this instance.

Like many others, I don't care who does what to whom if they consent and do
it in private. I don't care who wishes to grant each other legal and
medical power of attorney, rights to inherit, or other property and civil
rights as long as it is done between consenting adults. The civil union of
two gays performed by a civil authority in any state has exactly no effect
and no bearing on the civil union performed by a Rabbi in MD when Gloria and
I were married.

Now I've got to write my various congress people and tell them to vote
against this stupid amendment.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm