Milo;393027 wroteMy point is that, in the eyes of the Churches . . . yes. I DO think that part of the insistence of same sex couples for use of the term "marriage" has to do with poking a finger in the eye of those same Churches.
Personally, I don't care who an adult "marries". So long as the relationship is between consenting adults, it's none of my business . . . "marry" your cousin, for all I care (well, genetic and medical issues come into play there, but you get my meaning I hope).
What I am saying is this . . . removal of State sanction for "marriages" is what I am getting at. Why is it necessary for the City Council of Brampton to sanction my Union with my wife? Or yours? Why do I have to buy a license in the first place? To me, that puts marriage/Civil Unions/pair bonds on the same level as a trout you want to pull out of the lake at your cottage.
Much as I hate PET, he was right about this . . . "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation." Removal of the State from "marriage" is a logical extension.
Generating statistics and taxation? I've often wondered why one of the first questions you have to answer when filling out your taxes is whether or not you are married. Why do we have to file our taxes together?
As far as the first part about same sex couples using the term "marriage" being a poke in the eye of the churches. If that's what those churches believe, they really need to get over themselves. It's not all about them.