[Sethomas]

I posted this in Protoclown's blog a few days ago:

I fail to see why marriage should be a legally-defined institution at all. If people want some system to recognize a formal status of couple-ness for tax-breaks, insurance benefits, things like hospital visitation rights, then sure--there should be no argument as to homosexuals' rights to take part in that. As it stands, legal recognition of marriage is intrusion of the state into religion, and it's mutually destructive both from the religious perspective and the political.

It's not like putting the stamp of "marriage" on a relationship means jack shit to people now anyways, so people should stop pretending like it means anything from the political realm. So, yeah. I'm one of those "civil unions for everyone" assholes.

And it's a non-issue as to whether or not people feel like it's not "real" if it isn't called marriage. It's not like they couldn't find some religious institution that would recognize a marriage between homosexual individuals, but to suggest that all religions are expected to compromise their theologiae corpi to make everyone happy is no better an intrusion on Church and State than making this a theocracy.

-------------------------------------

Quick, someone flaunt historical ignorance and say "Christianity didn't invent marriage, the Romans already had it!"