Although it recognizes marriage, the government didn't define marriage--what gives it the authority to redefine it to satisfy an unknown percentage of a small portion of our country's population?
I'm about to go off on a tangent with this...
Why don't we just take marriage out of government completely?Like I said, I was off on a tangent. I'm not really sure how I feel about this--still sorting it out in my mind, and now out loud.
Moving forward, any man and woman who want to receive their God's blessing of marriage can do so in the manner of their own choosing or as prescribed by their spiritual faith.
This union shall not be recognized by the government or other authorities.
Rather, a new civil union shall be established.
Any two* people of same or opposite sex who want to make a permanent commitment to each other can apply for a license for a civil union to be recognized by government, employers, insurance providers, etc.
Dissolution of said unions shall be discouraged and severely punished (read: alimony, palimony, child support and inconvenience tax will be applied and enforced).
* Arguments will be made for polygamous, incestual and any other number of desired unions and the government will be called upon to define "equal protection"
But I am tiring of the debate.
I understand and respect the desire for equal treatment under the law, but I don't understand the desire to undermine a long standing spiritual tradition of many countries, cultures, generations, races and religions.
I question any argument's ability to convince me otherwise.