My reading comprehension is actually quite good, but I question yours, doctor. You’re the one changing the plane of the issue. I have said that this is the government taking a stance on private behavior, and you have failed to controvert that. You’re also conflating what you feel as an affront to your personal views with my condemnation of the government stepping into this arena. Like I’ve already said, I want you to have the freedom to believe anything that you want to. But I don’t want the government stepping into these matters.
As to your characterization of my second post, as I’ve already said, I find a civil union to be more or less tantamount to equality. There are a few issues that concern me (I previously mentioned spousal privilege in legal matters) but I am not advocating that the states change the definition of marriage. I do think that equality calls for at least a civil union option, however.
There’s nothing private about public behavior or any sort of actions that require legal intervention or privilege.
Again, you’re talking about changing public law.
By the way, there are various sorts of legal partnerships, powers of attorney, etc., that can be obtained for most purposes by any two people or any group of people.
Why should the government establish -—and thus endorse-— such unions?