![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Don't know when I'll be back again
Jul. 30th, 2003 08:38 amIt has beeen brought to my attention that I have not posted the itinerary for my latest venture.
Tentative plans are:
30 Jul UA889 SFO-LAX 1955-2119
31 Jul UA6911 LAX-TUS 0915-1040
02 Aug UA6982 TUS-LAX 1733-1900
02 Aug UA1420 LAX-SFO 2000-2114
So there's more fuss from the pope about gay marriage. Which once *again* causes me to ask what the hell is the US government involved in religious ceremonies for?
The big blow up here is, from my understanding, that many strongly Christian folks feel that extending the ceremony of marriage to anybody who is not a single unmarried man and a single unmarried woman degrades the sanctity of the union.
If this civil contract which is sanctioned by the government had no legal aspects, there would be no conflict.
Here's the game plan: Let there be no more marriages. At least legally speaking. If people still want to go to a church and perform the ceremony, more happy they. Legally speaking, we don't get married any more. We form some sort of civil union, and establish legal rights by contract. There'd be some sort of romantic name for the process, like 'civilly bound' or 'legally joined' or something, and insurance/inheritance/visitation rights would be bestowed by a state that is no longer tied to the church.
Tentative plans are:
30 Jul UA889 SFO-LAX 1955-2119
31 Jul UA6911 LAX-TUS 0915-1040
02 Aug UA6982 TUS-LAX 1733-1900
02 Aug UA1420 LAX-SFO 2000-2114
So there's more fuss from the pope about gay marriage. Which once *again* causes me to ask what the hell is the US government involved in religious ceremonies for?
The big blow up here is, from my understanding, that many strongly Christian folks feel that extending the ceremony of marriage to anybody who is not a single unmarried man and a single unmarried woman degrades the sanctity of the union.
If this civil contract which is sanctioned by the government had no legal aspects, there would be no conflict.
Here's the game plan: Let there be no more marriages. At least legally speaking. If people still want to go to a church and perform the ceremony, more happy they. Legally speaking, we don't get married any more. We form some sort of civil union, and establish legal rights by contract. There'd be some sort of romantic name for the process, like 'civilly bound' or 'legally joined' or something, and insurance/inheritance/visitation rights would be bestowed by a state that is no longer tied to the church.