Nerous wrote: As it is, we have a amendment which names marriage between a man and a woman. Actual descrimation in the constituition.
Amendment number? I missed that one in Con Law.
If i am not mistaken a civil union does not reward the tax right offs.
At the federal level you are correct AFAIK. On the state level, Vermont and especially now Mass might not be that way. But yeah, in general you're right and that's garbage.
Of course they can, and they do. What they cannot (currently) do is force the Government to recognize those marriages. But they can attend whatever relgiious ceremonies they wish and receive whatever religious benefits they wish -within their religion-. The bullshit is that the government will discriminate in favor of religious marriages that have one man and one woman only. That is a patent violation of the 1st Amendment but don't say that too loudly.You have the right to practice your religion, but religions that would actually allow marriage between to people of the same-sex cannot practice that, because it is put into the law.
What Yo (and I) are saying is that the Government should get completely out of the business of recognizing marriages. Essentially in the PaynYo system, the government says "any priest can declare whoever they want to be married, and we will recognize it in a civil context and give them these certain civil benefits, and we give no fucking care whatsoever to what religious benefits those convey."I believe that word is meaningful. Why should we have to have it called something else? Call me selfish, but i have always been the one to "take it for the team" and i am tired of it. I have the right. I want to be able to "Marry" David.
