SSM news

not really a topic I care about, but it's nice to have one's ideas validated

so anyway, Gabriel Malor has a post over at Ace's place on the the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act being considered by the California legislature. The part that caught my eye was this:

"The bill also changes California's marriage statutes to refer to "civil marriage" instead of just "marriage" to emphasize that the statutes apply to legally-binding, state-regulated marriages as contrasted with purely religious marriages that have no civil consequences."

Back in early November, in response to a post by Ragin' Dave of Four Right Wing Wackos fame, I posted the following:

"I've often wondered why the "civil union" option was considered just right out amongst the gay marriage proponents. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

Define "marriage". To most people, it conjures up visions of a couple, at the alter, swearing vows to each other before a preacher / priest / what-ever. In short, a union "blessed" by the church.

But let's look at what you have to do to get "married": first, you have to go to your local government and get a "Marriage License", an approval from the civil authorities to get hitched. Second (for most folks) you need to find a member of the clergy to perform (sanctify?) the marriage.

Let me offer a personal example: me and TheMissus™. We chose to be wed in a small private ceremony by a Justice of the Peace, as neither of us are church-going types......By the popular definition, we're not married, but have a civil union: endorsed by the State, but not "blessed" by the church.

So why is the "civil union" option so objectionable to the proponents of "gay marriage"? Hell if I know. Legally, TheMissus™ and I are just as "married" as if we were wed by Cardinal Glick in front of the Buddy Christ statue. Why this kind of "civil union" is not good enough for the "gay marriage" crowd, I'll never know."

Your mileage may vary.

more soon