Civil Unions

And big words were invented to prevent understanding ...

 

Miscegenation = racial mixing.

 

Not according to the letters and other works of Jefferson and Madison who wrote the amendment. Keep in mind that Jefferson himself was a deist who cut out references to Christ being the Son of God out of the Bible; obviously, he wouldn't want to deprive himself of his rights!

 

I hope no one here is against this...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

So, that means that marriage changes with time and place.

 

I know ... I was just funning you ...

 

None that I know of.

 

I hope no one here is against this... </font>[/QUOTE]None that I know of either. We have a number of racially mixed families as members.

 

Based on what some are contending, there seem to be 5 main eventual resolutions to the institution of "marriage"...

1) Keep it as it is in every state except Massachusetts-- one man, one woman, both of legal age; state may or may not recognize "common law" marriage, or the recent idea of "civil unions."

2) Keep marriage as limited to 2 persons, but force states and all government entities to bar "discriminatory" recognition of marriage, making "same sex" marraige equal to one man/one woman marriage. Religious bodies remain free to define marriage according to their own beliefs.

3) Make marriage entirely a legal matter, with no recognition of marriages performed in churches and/or by clergy unless it is also done in a "civil" ceremony, and no discrimination as to whether one gender may marry the same or the other gender. Religious bodies may or may not fully recognize a couple as married if they are legally married or only married according to the church.

4) Remove any restrictions about marriage-- no limit as to gender or multiple persons involved-- so that any 2 or more persons can "register" as being married and any government body assumes they are because they say so (essentially like a business partnership agreement-- if all consent, so be it).

5) There is legally no longer such a thing as marriage. Religious bodies are free, of course, to recognize such as they wish. But every asset that requires a title is either individually or jointly owned, with no community property, and every income-earner files with the same status-- the only one there is: "single" as it is today.

These are the 5 main eventual resolutions as I see it, but over the course of years, decades, or maybe centuries these are probably going to overlap. And "resolution" does not mean for all time; just as for centuries it has been resolved that marriage is one man/one woman, with few anomolies, like the 19th century Mormons. Unfortunately, the new anomolies-- same sex marriage and/or civil unions-- do not seem to be anomolies that will not last, but will progress, making it progressively harder for Bible-believers to accept this redifining, as we will have to accept on the legal level.

This analysis assumes that religious bodies shall not be required by force of law to be "nondiscriminatory" about performing same-sex or polygymous marriages, although that is not entirely out of the question for the distant future.

 

Contracts are legal agreements. If the contract is broken then the offended party can sue for damages or whatever.

 

&gt;&gt;Miscegenation = racial mixing.

&gt;I hope no one here is against this...

Not in theory. In practice I prefer that my grandkids not have to deal with the personal problems that it generates.

In a couple of generations skin color won't mean anything. Thanks to the end of all the old tribal customs in civilized countries, young people are marrying on the basis of intelligence and ambition. The new segregation will economic and political.