In Order To Form A More Perfect Union... II

The Massachusetts Supreme Court says that civil unions have that seperate but equal* taint about them. This will certainly give both sides more ammunition for their respective battles to come. Once again, I am for the right of gays to form lasting, legal and spiritual bonds; I just think that the government should not be forcing religious institutions to embrace these unions. If churches want to perform marriages for gay couples, then I will be there to throw the rice; but that is a matter for the individual churches to decide. I also think that any couple that weds outside the church should have a civil union license and not a marriage license. If a church decides to perform the ceremony, then the couple should get a marriage license. Is this a case of splitting hairs... Yes. I am not against gay marriages; I am against the government dictating policy over what is suppose to be a religious matter. I guess I would rather see marriage given back to the churches and civil unions given to those married by a judge, ship captain or Elvis impersonator.

Maybe the right to withhold marriage as a sacred union was given up by the churches long ago... When they allowed all civil ceremonies to be called marriages without protesting the lack of proper religious and sacred rite.
That is an argument that I would like to see the gay marriage proponents use against the religious establishment. I would like to hear the response. It would expose the hypocrisy that it is about keeping marriage sacred; it is about keeping it exclusive to heterosexuals.

I guess, upon reflection and rereading this blithering post, I find that gay marriages are really just fine with me. My defense of civil unions was more about keeping the government out of religious matters; but since the government has been in the marriage business for a loooooong time, that objection seems to be a moot point.

Okay. I'm in. I'll support the right for gay marriages...civil or otherwise.

*Just an additional thought: The MA courts claim that civil unions do not meet constitutional standards by reason of their seperate but equal status is a specious argument. When applied to the segregation of schools, hospitals and the like, this was a powerful argument. Blacks were not allowed access to the best schools and training; and, therefore, the segregated hospitals and schools could not offer truly equal education or care. As long as the civil unions were offered equal status and rights under all existing laws regarding marriages, their equality to marriage would not be the lie that segregated schools and hospitals were.