It's what they're doing to the language that gets me, first off .... but it's also demeaning the entire institution of marriage, when a person can 'marry' their pet chicken or whatever ...... the family is the building block of all society, destroy respect for it and you won't have much left .... it is reasonable that there be equal tax treatment for equal commitment between parties, but you don't have to soil marriage to accomplish that end, you can call it 'civil union' or something .... [which reminds you of the old thing about civil servants, eh, 'they are not that civil, nor do they serve']
They wouldn't force the religions to perform 'marriage' ceremonies though, imho .... that's a much further and more extreme step, and an absolute violation of separation of church and state ..... even in the deepest of the anti-cristero actions of the Calles government in the 1930s, when you couldn't invite more than three people to your 'church' wedding because any gathering of a priest and more than six people got the property on which it was held confiscated by the federales, there was no such rule ...... of course the government didn't recognise the church wedding as legal, either, and this is still the case, if you want to be married in the eyes of the state you have to go to the registro civil .... the church reciprocates completely, doesn't consider you married in its eyes unless you have done so in a church, for this reason many people have two weddings, and the more religious among them kill a larger hog for the festivo following the church affair
But hardly anybody, in fact nobody to my knowledge, marries the hog |
