How about this: "marriage" is performed in a house of worship, and "civil union" is performed in a courthouse.
Don't know what's changed since then, but that's pretty much how I did it. Had to go to the town where the county seat was (didn't even know where it was until then), go to the courthouse, fill out forms for the marriage license, show the blood test*, the works. It was a while later before we got to the church. I think the minister had to sign the license too, which is probably the only place the two processes intersected.
If this was more about two people getting married and less about making political hay and/or smacking political opponents in the face, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
.
*Do they still do blood tests? Or is finding out if you carry a disease now a violation of our rights? Ironically, when I got married, AIDS didn't exist in America. One would think a blood test would be almost critical now, especially in a gay marriage.
Current Events » in reply to You're right: civil disobedience is no way to point out that a law is unjust.
Marriage process
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
