tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978190147903284564.post6250105550405870818..comments2023-10-30T02:43:54.836-06:00Comments on Sam Nanti's Thoughts and Ravings: What Is Marriage?Sam, The Nanti-SARRMMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587528503125445405noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978190147903284564.post-66400155095329355152010-08-17T18:52:41.054-06:002010-08-17T18:52:41.054-06:00Merinmel: Would the "Religious Right" go...Merinmel: Would the "Religious Right" go for it? I would venture to say no. Not without a fight at least and calling democrats socialists and all sorts of hype about taking God out of the country and socialism and all that.<br /><br />But I think that would be best. Mexico does it, many countries in Europe does it. And I think it would work. Require that the only legal marriage/union is a civil union; and then you can get married how you please. It is the best answer to this debate because then it would mean that government doesn't get to define what marriage is. Nor would states. It would remain a right of the individual, based on how the couple see it. That is the answer I think.Sam, The Nanti-SARRMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09587528503125445405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978190147903284564.post-80145355616225718912010-08-17T16:51:01.498-06:002010-08-17T16:51:01.498-06:00I feel like you've summed these up pretty well...I feel like you've summed these up pretty well. Question: Do you think that most amongst the "Religious Right" would accept constitutional protection of civil unions if the word "marriage" was struck from all laws? So, if civil unions were open to any two people who wished to bind their lives together and marriage was left to be determined by religions and celebrants?Merinmel Caesghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05116812606148937251noreply@blogger.com