Nah baby, I couldn't do that without exposing you. I wouldn't cause you the embarrasment.Who knows, in this thread you may be lynched...or worse, we may not be allowed to marry!
1) Person A considers himself a leader.
2) Person B considers himself a leader.
3) Person A is legally classified as a Rabbi and Person B is not.
4) Person A and Person B have the exact drrned same rights, but person A is using a word that has come to be associated with his religion and Person B is using the non-religious term.
Get my point? Couple A and Couple B have the same rights. Couple A uses a religious term to define their union if they want to (as meets criteria for both the legal and religious union), and Couple B use the legal word bond. Same rights, treated equally. Couple A may choose to identify with religon or not. Either way, they are gonna have the exact same rights and treated equally with Couple B.
All that matters as far as treatment goes is the legal definition, and if the legal definition is neutral (union, bond, etc) or if there is marriage and union and in every way but the name marriage=union then they will be treated equally and are equal. What is the obsession with highjacking the word? THAT is what I find hard to understand?
Bookmarks