I agree with you.bennymacca wrote:Psyber wrote:I'm still with the principle of allowing gay marriage for those who are foolish enough to want to marry, but I think it would be a different matter to try to force religious institutions to perform the marriage ceremonies if they conflict with their beliefs.
The problem seems to be that religious institutions hold an historical mortgage on the term "Marriage" which the state goes along with by referring to non-religious ceremonies as "Civil Union".
.
most weddings performed nowadays are civil unions anyway. something like 70% are outside of the church as far as i know (cant remember exactly). they are still called marriages even though they are performed by civil ceremony with a celebrant. so i dont see this as an issue at all to allow gay people this right.
there would be at least some ministers that would welcome gay members of their congregation a chance to marry in their church too, and that should also be allowed.
However, the term "marriage" seems to evoke more resistance than "civil union" does, and some militants do seem to want to force the churches to comply.