03-27-2013, 04:08 PM
Pops wrote:
From the beginning, I have always objected to the term "marriage" being used by the government. Legal civil unions, with their appropriate legal protections should be the government's concern. Whether those rights or non-rights are federal or state related is a constitutional matter, IMO. I think the term "marriage" should be a religious issue determined by religious institutions, with no civil meaning attached.
That's just one atheist's view. One who has been "married" 40 years come this August.
What Pops said is exactly the case. A "civil union" falls under the purview of government in that it defines the legal parameters of the joining two parties in a partnership. "Marriage" is entirely a religious concept. If a civil servant (Justice of the Peace) or a ship Captain can perform a marriage ceremony, and it is seen as legally binding, the question has already been answered.
You don't sue for divorce before a pastor, priest or rabbi, you argue before a judge. Thus, only the State can end a civil union (by whatever name you give it), and, conversely, it would stand to reason that only the State can create a civil union (or whatever name you give it).
Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to place a firewall between Church and State. Let's keep it that way. The SCOTUS is being asked to define contract law (a civil union) NOT a religious tradition. I hope they all understand that.