New Poll Shows Highest Support for Gay Marriage Ever, Pope Comes Out for Civil Unions


Neatly put.
Seriously. Do these idiots not see the obvious parallels between civil unions and the "Separate but equal" clause of the constitution? Idiots.
I, too feel bitterness at the RCC. But I have to admit I like Francis. And I find it difficult to blame him for the past. I haven't changed my mind about their dogma. It's just that I've never known a less arrogant pope in my lifetime. And I want to give him the benefit of the doubt despite myself.
Would Dan's friend (or Dan) be willing to accept the compromise that the government gets out of the business of marrying people, gay or straight?
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I get an adequate response: Why hasn't the Catholic Church lobbied with the same intensity to prevent divorced non-Catholics from getting remarried at City Hall in conformity with Catholic teaching the way they have been trying to prevent non-Catholic gay people from getting married at City Hall?

If they really believed in the "sanctity of marriage" as much as they claim they would have been doing this all along. But they haven't, which means this is strictly about anti-gay animus and nothing more. They've been called out and the pope knows it. He's trying to make up for lost time, and while that may work in the third world, in the developed world people will see it for what it is: a pitiful attempt at reclaiming an entire generation of young people who recognize bigotry when they see it.
Speaking as a devout atheist/agnostic, I also agree that Frank's pretty great. There was pretty much a 0% chance that he was gonna come out in favor of Marriage even if he believes in it at heart. This was as progressive a move as we could realistically have expected.
That is just great Dan! Hear hear.
If the Pope can make a distinction between marriage and civil unions, what's stopping him from using the same logic to make a distinction between Catholic marriage (which he has every right to pontificate on) and civil marriage (which he has no say on), and mind his own fucking business? I'm glad that he's moving in the right direction, but he's decades behind. I guess that's not bad for the leader of an insitution that's frequently centuries behind the times, though.
This opposite-married, Bible-believing Christian is of the opinion that we should have civil unions for everybody. Take away the government's authority to "marry" people, and give it just enough authority to dole out legal rights for two people who choose to be legally entangled. Then if couples want to be "married" - at a church, synagogue, temple, U2 concert, Pride parade, or anywhere else - they can add on whatever other ceremonies they want to. This is already the norm in countries like France, where the idea of legal marriage and religious marriage are almost entirely separate - why do we still think the religious "marriage" and legal "marriage" should always be the same thing?
(sorry, split post)

. . . which is to say I understand the Pope's position. He's not the right guy to ask about legal marriage - he may be a religious authority, but that's about it. So for him to say "in a non-religious way, I think you guys should be able to go for it" is good. And if he wants to take the religious stance that the Catholic church is not in favor of sanctioning gay marriage, I think that's reasonable, too - not that anyone has to agree with him, of course, but part of the whole "freedom from/of religion" thing is that religions can set their own standards for their followers. I'd love for more Christians to take their cue from that - "I'll police my own religion and not interfere in other people's lives." (Well, that's an idealized version and probably wishful thinking but still.)
I think it's worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) does not recognize many marriages that US law does: those between people who have been divorced; those between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (unless the non-catholic has taken instruction and/or signed a pledge to raise any children as Catholic); those performed by civic officials rather than by church officials, etc.

I think its possible that Francis is saying that gays cannot get married in the RCC, but that civil ceremonies are fine.

I'm born and raised a Catholic, and I married my husband ssix years ago in Canada. I don't give a rats ass whether the RCC ever recognizes our marriage or not, but if the Pope's shift in position helps soften the opposition to civil marriage in the US, I'm for it.
Amen, Dan. A-fucking-men.

I remember those smug assholes on tv back then and you're right, they were thankful for the AIDS crisis, believing it to be Proof Positive that they were correct, and that "all the right people are dying." I remember how shocking it was when Liz Taylor stood up for teh gays and castigated that asshole-in-chief, Ronnie Rayguns, for gleefully turning his back on millions of dying Americans. I remember that goddamned quilt.

Way too little, way too late. That ship has fucking sailed, indeed.
I think that ever since 2005 or so, being for civil unions was a way for someone like Obama, John Kerry, or now the Pope to signal that they are really for gay marriage, but they are unwilling to take a leadership role and bear the criticism that taking that position would bring.
Yawn, wake me up when Pope Francis blesses a same sex union in St. Peter's.
I think that ever since 2004 or so, being for civil unions was a way to signal that you are for gay marriage but unwilling to take a leadership role and bear the political and social costs that come with that position. It was that way for John Kerry, Obama, and now the Pope.
Not just yeah, fuck yeah!

@6 No. Sorry, it's too intertwined with common law. Government can't "get out of the business of marrying people" in any way that's actually practical. Not to mention, the government can't rely on religions to define marriage (trivial example: must the government charge a Catholic who marries, divorces, and then remarries--either civilly or as a Protestant--with bigamy since his divorce wouldn't be recognized by the church?).
Sure, Frances is a bit behind the times, 1985 or perhaps even earlier, but considering that is at least a century leap ahead of his predecessors its a big deal. Also, I believe this basically aligns him with the Dali Lama on this issue.
People keep talking about "marriage" as though that were the religious side of uniting two people. It is not. Marriage is a contract -- a civil contract -- between two people who may *also* have their uniting blessed by a religious figure. The church didn't get itself into the marriage business until sometime around the 15th Century; before that, the only way the church was involved was that the parish priest was frequently the only person for miles in any direction who could read or write, so he (always he, yes) was the one responsible for keeping the registry of the contracts that people had signed. The church actually held marriage in fairly low esteem, following the dictates of Paul, who only recommended it for those of his followers who didn't have the self-control to remain celibate. Don't let the discussions degenerate into "marriage" being religious and "union" being civil. In Europe, the marriage is performed at City Hall; the religious ceremony is a mass that celebrates and blesses, but does not unite, the couple. Just because many religious figures here in the US are *also* Justices of the Peace qualified to perform marriages doesn't mean that marriage is a religious institution.
@6 You wrote: "Would Dan's friend (or Dan) be willing to accept the compromise that the government gets out of the business of marrying people, gay or straight? "

With all due respect, your question is utter nonsense.

It confuses the wedding ceremony (which may or may not be religious) with the marriage, and is based upon the premise that "marriage" is a religious sacrament that sometimes has a legal component (this, by the way, is a fairly common assumption).

I would argue that precisely the opposite is true: marriage is a legal arrangment, that sometimes has a religious component.

Two (hetero) couples get married. Couple A has a service performed in a cathedral by the Archbishop of Whatever with 500 guests looking on. Couple B goes to a drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas and pays two people $50 each to be legal witnesses.

Socially speaking, we may regard the wedding ceremonies as very different. We might even go so far as to regard the church wedding as superior to the one in the wedding chapel.

Howver--legally speaking--there is absolutely no difference between the two marriages. Couple A and Couple B have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and privileges, and religion hasn't got a damn thing to do with any of it.
In my perfect world, everything would be a civil union, and "marriage" would just be some churchy thing you did if that's what you want to do.

But that's my perfect world. I think "marriage" is corny, but if it gets me the rights I'm entitled to, I can live with corny.
The civil union issue is dead, as of the Supreme Court's June decision on DOMA. The federal laws must recognize legal MARRIAGES, not civil unions or similar lesser constructs. That is why states that currently allow "marriage lite" -- "all the rights of marriage except the name" -- will end up losing the case in court. Civil unions do not provide federal rights, like the right to sponsor a spouse for legal residence in the US or the right to share the social security benefits or the right to th same tax status for spousal inheritance.
First off, Dan is %100 right on about this one. He gave the exact answer I would have.

Christians had 30+ years to give us civil unions. When the thought of actual marriage was considered impossible we would have jumped at that. But they didn't offer it. In fact they fought it, and what's more, they continue to fight it.

Many of the anti marriage laws in the states that have them not only ban same sex marriage, but also civil unions and in some cases like NC even domestic partnerships for same sex couples.

When the fight for full marriages only a shade more difficult that the fight for lesser civil unions, AND we are making many strides towards full marriage every day, why on earth would we accept the second class recognition of civil unions?

They had their chance, they are loosing, and now they want to compromise?

That's not how negotiations work guys.

As for Francis, sorry, but I'm not impressed and I don't think he is such a great guy. Of course, relatively, he's much better than Pope Palpatine (shouldn't he be dead? I thought Sith had to kill their masters to move up the chain.), but he is still cut from the same cloth.

He is an excellent PR man. He says things that sound nice, but he has made virtually zero policy changes that make things better for the folks his church has been stepping on for pretty much all of history. He can talk about not judging gay people, but then he excommunicates priests for not opposing same sex civil marriages.

Remember, this is the guy who, during Argentina's marriage fight, called same sex marriage the work of the devil and adoption of children by same sex couples as child abuse.

And the Vatican has gone to great pains to make it clear that he hasn't changed his stance on these issues, just the tone of the conversation

When he actually does something to improve the lives of gay people, women, minorities etc... that he isn't forced to by societal change and pressure I will be impressed.

Until then I continue him as just a more eloquent and less revolting mouth piece for the church, but still a smarmy PR man just the same and little else.
@4 The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church aren't exactly American in the way your comment would imply.

@21,22 If you two were as well informed as you're pretneding to be, you'd know the RCC has a longstanding Sacrament of Marriage, distinct from any sort of civil state of marriage; there have been schisms and bloodshed over this distinction. You might even note that RCC SoMs only end in death or annulment, a civil divorce does not apply.

- And as for the rest, the RCC is an amazingly huge ship and any radical turn is more likely to snap the rudder off than to move the damn thing. Pope Frankly, this is probably more than the Church is ready for, and therefore probably more worthy of praise than scorn.
everyone but Danny knows the RCC is an evil apostate whore and pays no attention to it.
make book that the whore WILL recognize homosexual "marriage" at some point, only the latest of a series moral crimes stretching two thousand years...
support for homosexual "marriage" is another tracking point for the decline of civilization, in case you are keeping score.

however it is not causative, like out of wed births.

rather it is a symptom of how far a civilizations moral values have fallen.
not everyone in a corrupt failing society will get a homosexual "marriage".
but you can do your bit for depravity, perversion and decay by pretending that it is "Just As Good" as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.

then when the end comes you can know you are reaping what you have sown.
Let's just back up a fucking second. My linear-thinking brainbox is trying to formulate exactly what the difference is supposed to be between a "civil union" and civil marriage.

Is there a difference in expiration dates? A marriage permanent and a civil union having to be renewed every 5 years like a drivers license?

Is there a difference in rights conveyed to the partners?

What? What's the difference and other than some fusty doctrinal types whose doctrines are banned from State recognition, who gives a fuck?

Because if there's no substantial difference, why the fuck should there be two exactly the same things, called something else? That's naked Apartheid and nothing else.
@26 - If you were as well informed as you think you are, you would know that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the sacrament of marriage was considered so vital to the union that it was formalized and a priest was required to be in attendance, along with witnesses. Before that, the "sacrament" of marriage was a theological argument, not a religious obligation defining the act. I am well aware that civil actions in relation to marriage are not recognized by the RCC and I think it hypocritical in the extreme, considering it can be argued that the Trentian requirement of an officiating priest *and witnesses* was settled as a way of fixing a problem with the inheritance and division of property claimed by both the RCC and the families of the supposedly married priests, some of whom might not have been married at all. It had nothing to do with priestly celibacy or control over the physical union of the couple involved -- only with the property rights, which, I emphasize again, are a matter of civil contract law and always have been.
I'm reminded of that old story from Rome -- the Gauls ransomed the city, but when the city fathers started quibbling over the weight of the purse, the chief of the Gauks threw his sword atop the scale.

"Vae victus." Woe to the vanquished. It was a Roman idiom meaning that the winner gets to set the terms. Complicated metaphor aside, the civic equality movement has won the argument in the argument in the West. The conservatives should know when they're beaten.
Well said, Dan. Never let those bastards forget how viciously nasty they were. Francis's statement is like the commander of the opposing army signaling defeat. "Let's negotiate!" Sure.

And let's none of us lose sight that there are still people in the world who are as coldly inhumane as those Christian conservatives in the '80's. Just look at Russia. Just look at Uganda. Just look at your local town where folks who deviate from the standard gender roles are beat up and discriminated against. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it (or however it goes). It's important for our future that we don't forget the ugliness of the early AIDS era.
and unfortunately "civil unions" sounds like code for allowing insurance companies to continue to practice govt. sponsored bigotry towards the families of same sex couples

I don't think "no deal" should have anything to do with the mistakes in the past that church leadership has made on these issues, but any idiot would realize that full and completely restored rights to all families must come before any frivolous negotiations regarding semantics
@31 If you're acknowledging the Sacrament of Marriage as something that exists, how is it not valid to discuss it as something that does exist? There is a sacrament and it means stuff to adherents of the RCC. That it should also mean something in terms of civil marriage for anyone is a longstanding and execrable tradition, but one we must acknowledge if we're talking about history.

Still, I am interested in understanding why you give such preeminence to the Council of Trent over the Fourth Lateran Council's (1215) ban on clandestine marriages, the need for the Ne Temere decree in 1908 or any of the many other times the Church has put forth on the subject.
Give up on marriage when the US will have full equality before 2016? Puh-lease. Even 5 years ago we might've made that deal, as a way of getting people in the states that were always going to have to wait the longest protection, but now? GTFO.
If the government got out of the marriage business and everyone had civil unions, then marriage should fall back to the people, as it used to be. Which means people could marry themselves to each other and define whatever marriages they wanted. This would allow same-sex and mixed-sex marriage. But you'd need legal protections such that anything that used to be offered on the basis of marriage would now be offered on the basis of civil unions. This is messy and it basically involves saying "civil union" every time you used to say marriage/married. People would probably still talk about being married, rather than having a civil union - the paperwork would just have changed. So, all in all, it's not worth doing, because it would just confuse people and change nothing.
@36 I'm saying that marriage may be a sacrament in the RCC now but it began as a civil contract and remains a civil contract; that using the term "marriage" for a religious activity is incorrect when -- as is the case in the United States -- religious officials MAY officiate a marriage ONLY if they have ALSO applied for and received civil authority or IF the civil laws of their particular jurisdiction permit them to do so. Marriage, then, is not what the Roman church says it is, or what any church says it is, and applying the word as specific only to heterosexual unions is incorrect and misleading. I mention Trent and leave out the other things because it marked a shift in the way the RCC treated the sacrament of marriage and the way the RCC talked about it.

The RCC is free to talk about the sacrament of marriage as though it were a real thing as long as it keeps that conversation within its own religious walls; RCC spokesmen are welcome to talk in those terms all they want to within their own councils. Once the church takes "sacrament" out into the street it needs to stop lying about the roots and function of marriage.
@20 The Dalai Lama has stated that he is fine with marriage equality.……
First things first: gay marriage should happen and they have every right to it. No dispute.

In Francis' defense though, he just got the job. It's a bit much to be mad at him for being the first one to admit what should have been admitted years ago. Yes, the Church should have stepped its game up decades ago, but there wasn't all that much Francis could do at the time. He was a bit busy dealing with the military takeovers in Argentina during the AIDS crisis here. Let's not all dump blame for the Church's failings on the first guy to start fixing it.
If the RCC wants to bless gay civil unions as some kind of sacrament, then I think that is lovely. The Episcopal Church already does that - similar but separate liturgy to their marriage liturgy.

As far as the law, yes, what Dan said.
Perhaps Francis misspoke again....when he said 'civil unions' he intended to say 'fuck that'.
As an older gay male who survived the 80's and 90's thought you would be interested in this recipe for survival of the species from William F. Buckley:…

Such Christian Conservative Compassion! Tattoo us and sterilize women.

Just read today of 2 HIV breakthroughs: Altering our genes to allow our bodies to fight HIV permanently. And HIV positive infants can be seroconverted.

Oh and old Bill Buckley is dead.

It gets better.
@43: He didn't say he was open to it, someone else said that's how his words should be interpreted.
What Pope Francis is probably talking about is giving gay couples the same kind of pseudo-recognition that is currently given to people who are divorced and remarried. There are lots of people who are married under U.S. law but not considered to be really married in the eyes of the Church. And frankly, His Holiness is not a legal authority. Religions have every right to decide which religious rituals to perform and recognize. Remember, they can only inflict religious consequences. It was the laws of man that failed to protect surviving partners from eviction and removal from hospital rooms, not the laws of the Catholic Church.

I agree with @41. The Church is coming along, and faster than expected. If Pope Francis pushes much faster than this, he's likely to get Vatican Flu.
Ms F - Not your best example unless you're going to show that none of the hospitals were RC. "Don't blame us for not protecting you from eviction because we were (often) the evictors"?

I do agree with you that he risks sharing the fate of poor JP1, but this just feels more like damage control than really coming around - for now. It might improve. You do make me think, though, of Mary Crawford's plan for her brother's persevering in his attempt to win the affection of Fanny Price:

"'She meant to urge him to persevere in the hope of being loved in time, and of having his addresses most kindly received at the end of about ten years' happy marriage.'"
@6 getting government out of marriage is not a compromise. It would be chaos fueled by stupidity. Our society requires orderly judicial administration of breakups, as a matter of fundamental fairness to the parties involved and to protect the children, and a clear definition of the legal status of marriage for the benefit of third parties with whom the spouses deal. Also, "protecting marriage" by removing all legal supports form it is nihilistically hypocritical. Gah, the lengths some people will go to hurt gay couples and avoid their existence.
Further to @48 - see @21. The solution is not getting government out of the marriage business. It is getting religion out of the marriage business.

Remove the ability for ministers of any religion to perform civil marriage. If a couple - any couple - wants to enter into a marriage contract that is considered valid in the eyes of the state, then they do so under civil law at the courthouse or city hall.

If two people believe their god wants them to participate in a religious ritual to sanctify their fucking, they can of course do so. Their church can determine the forms and requirements to participate in that sacrament, but it is entirely a religious matter. They will not be married in the eyes of the state unless they have also contracted a civil marriage.
@4, "separate but equal" is not in the Constitution. It's a legal doctrine that was used to sidestep the protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and finally died a long-overdue death with Brown and subsequent rulings.
@49 - THANK YOU! Yes. (Sorry about the shouting but really . . .)
I'm standing in front of my computer doing a loud, slow clap, as was so frequently done in the popular high school movies of the 80's. Thank you Dan, and AMEN!
Until Francis deigns to turn over all of the rapists he is giving succor to in the dark and slimy crevices of the Holy Madonna/Whore Church of Rome, the bastard doesn't deserve the kind words some here are offering for him.

Dan's words have taken me back to those days living in Reagan hell. Those words should be read from every pulpit for a month of Sundays. And at the end of that Sunday month, each and every right wing Christian who was an adult in the days of Reagan should be dragged to hell and skull fucked eternally with a broken bottle.

Since that ain't gonna happen, I'm happy to see marriage equality "forced down the throats" of religious Americans. Fuck you, Francis. Fuck you, each and every Christian with the gall to offer us compromise on the eve of our triumph. That goes for Dan's thumper friend, too. LGBT rights are paid for with buckets of pain and oceans of tears. They are non negotiable.
@49 Ordering religion out of marriage would be a bad thing. Yes, it's been about property and offspring since time immemorial but it's been about religion just as long. Couples already need valid marriage licenses to be considered legally married in the U.S. In NJ, the rule is that there must be "a ceremony" to mark exactly when the marriage begins. (Some religions don't require a ceremony and vows, but state law does.) The government already treats religious and nonreligious ceremonies the same.

@47 Unless you can show that all of those hospitals were Catholic, your argument doesn't hold water. Why did people get dragged away? Because the law permitted discrimination against gays? When do such things stop? When the law ceases to permit discrimination against gays. The kicker is secular law, not religious law.

Not sure what your Mary Crawford analogy has to do with this. A reference to how the Church is slow to respond to social change? Yes it is, no contest, but it's getting better.

And I rarely do all caps - but yes!!! this column is great!
@54: " Ordering religion out of marriage would be a bad thing."

How, exactly? As you note, a couple must already acquire a valid civil marriage license. All that I mean by "ordering religion out of marriage" is to strip away the privilege of ordained clergy to solemnize civil marriage. What is the benefit of allowing them this privilege? It is nothing more than a convenience.

Allowing religious ministers to solemnize civil marriages creates the impression and the expectation that religious laws can govern civil marriages. Which is why in many jurisdictions, to this day, two people who do not believe in god may not be married because some people who do believe in god think they should not be allowed to.
@56, I agree that allowing ministers to solemnizes civil marriages gives that impression that marriage is governed by religion rather than by government.

The problem is with the real reason why we allow religious leaders to perform legal marriages. It is both a convenience to the people getting married, but it is also a cost saver. The government doesn't need nearly as many people on the books to perform marriages as they would if every person who got married had to bet married by a government official of some kind.

Allowing the religious marriage that most people get anyway to have legal standing reduces costs to the government, and it would be a hard sell to tell people that we are making only civil marriages legally recognized, oh, and by the way your taxes are going to have to go up to help pay the additional costs.
@57: But civil marriages are the only ones that are legally recognized.

A man and woman can walk into a church and ask the minister to perform that religion's marriage ceremony. They can stand up in front of the whole congregation, say "I do", have the minister pronounce them man and wife, but they won't be married unless they have a license issued by the civil authorities. Nothing requires the minister to ask them if they have that license. Nothing requires the minister to refuse to perform the religious ritual if they don't have that license. They can be married in the eyes of their church without being married in the eyes of the state.

Millions of people are, in fact. Any Roman Catholic who was married in the church and subsequently divorced without obtaining an annulment is still married in the eyes of the church.

I know that there are a host of problems that would come with taking away the churches' privileges to perform civil marriage. But maybe it needs to be made clear to them that is is a privilege and they need to step off on assuming that they get to make the rules.

It's bad enough that we let them pick and choose who they marry. No civil marriage commissioner has that right, and lawsuits are fought to make the damn florist sell to any and every wedding. But the churches can still discriminate all they like.

I actually wonder, when you note that most people get a religious marriage, how many of them would do so if there were more options available. I know a lot of couples for whom the only time either of them set foot in a church in their adult life is the day they were married, and they won't be back until the day they are buried. But if the little white church is the only game in town, that's where you go.
Ms F - But I wasn't saying that it was the RCC's responsibility to prevent discrimination at non-RC hospitals. I quite agree with you on that. It was not the place of RCs to be the guardian angels at non-RC hospitals preventing people from being dragged away from their loved ones by force. But, as permission does not equal requirement, the RC staff at RC hospitals didn't have to do the nasty things they did. I entirely agree it wasn't the place of RCs to change the law that permitted them to ill-treat people. All I say is that RC hospitals ill-treated people entirely of their own RC volition (as, of course, did many others). Saying that one can't blame the RCC for not changing discriminatory laws is rather like being the accused murderer who was innocent because, when the murder was committed, he was robbing a bank.

I think you can make a better case, which is why I said that wasn't your best example.
@58, I don't know of any town where you can't be married by a justice of the peace if you want to. I was married by a judge. It's not hard to do. I'm sure there are many reasons why people who aren't really religious get married in churches, but I don't think lack of other options is the reason. In fact it is probably harder to get married in an actual church if you are not a regular church goer than to get married by a city official.

I would have no idea how to begin looking for a church to get married. But getting married by the judge was easy. I arranged it at the same time I filed for my marriage license at city hall.

@56, You are correct in that allowing an ordained minister to perform a marriage is merely a convenience. So what is the benefit of removing this convenience from people's lives? I'm IN the marriage racket and don't see any benefit to either myself or anyone I have married to removing my ability to perform said ceremony. Of course I don't perform marriages that the RCC would recognize, but then a protestant minister doing the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the RCC either, but at least the state will recognize it.

As for your statement "Which is why in many jurisdictions, to this day, two people who do not believe in god may not be married because some people who do believe in god think they should not be allowed to.", if you are talking about same-sex marriage you are quite correct (there are way to many states with laws against it) but if you are talking about opposite-sex marriage you are totally incorrect. Every jurisdiction in the US has a JotP or the equivalent that can give you a nice civil ceremony (at a cost) if you want. It is amazing what it can cost for 2 questions (that you and your SO are required to answer), a statement and a signature tho. The main differences between me and the JotP doing it is that I (usually) cost less and I don't have an issue with you giving me a script containing the vows you want said. As long as it includes those two questions and allows me to make it official I don't care. A JotP on the other hand is more likely to do it his way. YMMV on that by the way.
During those distant memories of marriage debates in Canada, when confronted with the "it should be a separate name" people I used to say, "Fine, you don't want to share an institution with us? We'll take marriage. Feel free to go out there and sell civil unions to straight people."

After all, if it's EXACTLY the same except for the name, and you think we should be happy to have it, you should be just as happy to have it and have marriage denied to you.

P.S. to Dan - your friend is an asshole.
Slartibartfast that is NOT how they do it in France.

People have a civil MARRIAGE that is the only legal ceremony. And if they choose to, they can have whatever legally meaningless ceremony they want in a church, a disco or a bowling alley. But that's not MARRIAGE. It's a religious ceremony the state couldn't give a flying fuck about. It's no more valid than a bar mitzvah or a confirmation.

So no, we're not going to take MARRIAGE away from people and replace it with an inferior civil union that no other country will recognize legally.

Do whatever you want in your church, if you have one, and stop trying to impose your ignorance on the rest of the world.
Spot on.
My story goes to everyone out there that are in the situation that i have also being through. and how i was saved.I have been rejected by my husband after nine years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kids to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster Dr Agba on this Email: have help a woman to get back her husband. and i gave him a reply to his address and he assured me of getting my husband back in three days time and i believed in him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my husband as everything happened just as he has said. his email :, you can contact him for help and get your problem solved.
Hello Friends, My name is Mrs Copeland From South Africa, I want to use this medium to share with you about the Greatest Spell Caster i encounter, This i Promised him that i was going to do, By Telling the World about him through every possible medium. This Spell caster Broke the barrenness of 22 solid years, and also made my husband to come back to me. My husband left me before as a result of the fact that i could not give him a child, But when i met this Spell Caster. To my greatest surprise, Just as his words drops, That is how it works, I believed every drop of word from his mouth, and now i am a mother of 2 bouncing babies. You can also reach him via email,
He does not waste time whatsoever he does. He always tell people, once you contact him, He always say you have reach the final bus stop that will bring Solution to your problem. And just as he said, I Muller is a Living Testimony to that today... Do not wait for too long.

Hello every body in the world my name is natas My ex-boyfriend dumped me 9 months ago after I accused him of seeing someone else and insulting him.I want him back in my life but he refuse to have any contact with me.I was so confuse and don’t know what to do,so I reach to the internet and i meet Dr,SAVIOR and i explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me and assure me of 3 days that my ex will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my ex came knocking on my door and beg for forgiveness.I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that,we are about to get married.once again thank you Dr,SAVIOR you are truly talented and gifted any kind of help, or call +2348028017156