This is just another assault on the meaning of language.
To call this pairing of same-sex partners as a “marriage” is to diminish and demean the original meaning of the term.
Marriage has become a strange sort of contract, most of which is unwritten, except as interpreted by case law. It has evolved from a sworn vow, repeated before religious authority, into an activity licensed and sort of sanctioned by the secular government.
There is a formal contract, called “civil union” which carries none of the blessings of a formal religion, but in most jurisdictions, has the terms all spelled out and down in print, of which the partners involved have been informed of the intent. This is perfectly adequate for purposes of establishing rights of inheritance, property ownership, and entering into other contracts as a unit, or for tax purposes.
There is no logical or legal reason to pursue the renaming of “civil unions” as “marriage”, except as a way to show how much influence can be bought or imposed by a very determined minority.
Oh, there is a reason. It is to put the power of the state behind gays who want to push anyone who dares say that what they do is immoral.
agreed