I think you’re well within your rights to be bossy in this last vlog. The whole marriage issue really isn’t fair.

We’ve only just gotten the Civil Partnerships Act in the UK, which isn’t marriage, but (to the best of my, albeit, limited knowledge) provides some legal benefits. Plus, it applies to the whole country rather than individual counties.

If I lived in the states, you can be sure I would write to my congressman about this to get a similar sort of setup over there. While I can understand why a church wedding could prove a problem for some, surely a civil partnership (marriage in all but name) which would put couples on a fairly even footing with their straight counterparts shouldn’t prove too objectionable? Should it?

P.S. That is a *very* shiny closing graphic

I agree with you totally. I believe that the government should provide civil unions to all people who wish to engage in a legally binding, government recognized relationship.

The term “Marriage” means nothing to me. I feel that a marriage should be the name given to a relationship that is sanctified by a religious body. If a religious body decides that it will not recognize gay unions and confer the “marriage” title to their relationship, so be it.

It’s important from a emotional standpoint to differentiate from the government-recognized and the chruch-recognized. I think that would go a long way in eliminating the anti-gay marriage crowd in the US (and world).

The thing that confuses me (and please correct me if I’m wrong), but isn’t there supposed to be a complete and utter seperation between chruch and state in the U.S.?

Not exactly, but not exactly not. It’s complicated!

Search Wikipedia for Separation of Church and State. It’s good reading (and much better than I could ever do).