Quote: The Unitarian Church is currently willing to marry gay people. It is a church, a religious organization, and it is marrying gay people. Reckonizing them inWait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to
its faith as married. So, now you want to make it so that they CAN'T be married, even if a religious faith wants to do so? That's fuckign vile,
I'm sorry. Allowing anyone (gay or straight) to be married is a valuabel part of religious freedom because if you refuse to allow them to you are
suppressing someone's faith. maybe not the faith of your mother (which is vile) but the faith of everybody, in every religion. because if you suppress
the ability of one church to marry its parishoners you are repressing religious rights.
marry anyone it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument,
it's ONLY the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government
(visitation rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover.
Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you think
we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away.