If civil unions had identical rights to marriage, would that make both sides of the debate happy?

The anti-gay marriage crowd gets to keep the definition of a word.


%26amp;


The pro-gay marriage crowd gets all the legal and financial benefits of marriage.





Everybody is happy right?If civil unions had identical rights to marriage, would that make both sides of the debate happy?
No, because civil unions would still be perceived as second class.





Here is the best solution. The government renames all marriages as civil unions in the eyes of the government. So legally, and for government purposes, they would only be known as civil unions and not as marriages.





Only churches and religious institutions would be able to use the word marriage. And the word marriage would cease to have legal meaning. Only religious meaning.





So if you got married at the county courthouse, it wouldn't be a marriage, it would be a civil union, regardless of if it was same sex or man-woman.





';Marriage licenses'; would be re-named as civil union licenses.





Only if you got married at a church or other religious institution would it be called a marriage. If any given church didn't want to do same sex marriages, they wouldn't have to.





This way, everyone has a civil union, and only those who opt for church based religious unions would be able to say they are married.If civil unions had identical rights to marriage, would that make both sides of the debate happy?
No, it wouldn't make either side happy. One side wants complete rights, the other wants none, some are in the middle. Actually, marriage has no right to be included in any legal discretion. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state and marriage is a religious institution.
Works for me and is what I have said all along