Huh? What is with some folks here - can't you see the words "GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED"? Doesn't that work? Right now, we have PARALLEL marriage ceremonies - one of the Government, one of the Church. Eliminate the Government one - it does not imply elimination of the one in the Church - the REAL marriage.
As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.
Sure. They exist today. Is that at odds? How is that any different than what any group of parties can do THIS VERY DAY? It is not. Thus your insistence that somehow this is "wrong" is not just moot, it is irrelevant.
You can get married, and you can also have a civil union. In fact, we call those 'civil marriages' where the Church is not involved at all. And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties.
This is a non-issue to the central point - get the Government out of the business of marriage.
So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.
On the contrary! I am saying the ONLY people who can get married are those who will do it under the Church! If you choose to not do it under the church, then get yourself a civil union - because it is NOT a marriage.
Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .
Not even close. If you get married today in a Church, are you married?
What if you choose to not get a marriage license? Are you still married?
I contend it is those who insist that Government recognize a union of man and woman, before the Church and with God's blessing, who are placing the Church and the sacrament of marriage as subservient to the Government. For you are telling all that a marriage is not valid unless the Government blesses and condones it.
That is, IMHO, heretical.
Marriage is the union of man and woman, becoming one flesh in the eyes of God and their fellow believers. Two people becoming one legal entity is a civil union. That is the matter for the Government - not the Church - to decide.
The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.
As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.
I've cited your posts and your words - 0bamaesque word parsing at this stage of the game shows your failure. Your hole is just getting deeper.
And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties
And yet you still want government involvement after all - seriously confused I'd say.
The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.
As already cited numerous times, your words do not match or have consistency.
As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.
As was displayed- her statement was confirmed in three separate posts - so your bleat was out of order and as you did the previous post - proved further your errors.