I said nothing about church or the definition of marriage. I said the government need not be involved in sanctioning any marriage. If a live-in arrangement breaks up amicably and the couple figures things out themselves without a judge--what's wrong with that?Right...but where is that done? In a court which is by extension...Government. You said "why not get Government out of Marriage". They're already in it. Non Married couples who split up amicably don't need a court to divide up their stuff. But when there's a dispute...how would that be adjudicated?
If you're arguing no ones needs either Government or a Church to call themselves "Married", now you're redefining what that means and there you will get an argument from folks Religious or non.
As I said, I don't have a problem with calling same Sex couples who Marry "Civil Unions" but if you remove the Government from any recognition of that arrangement legal or otherwise...you're opening up a can of worms that may ultimately redefine what any union is. A man and 2 Women, 3 Women and 2 Men...10 Men and 20 Women....where would you draw the line?
I'm not ready to put society through that just so folks can live any way they want and be called a "union"
Let's define first what Marriage is (as we've always known it) then if same sex couples also want that legal status...let's define what their arrangement is...so there's no confusion for anyone, or the Government.
Then leave it at that.
If a court needs to be involved what difference does it make which court hears the case?
Why do I or does anyone need to draw a line? People will decide as consenting adults what they think is best. If their decisions are wrong-headed then they suffer and have to make different choices.