Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill

[John Dibble]

I like that it makes clearer definitions, but dislike the fact that we're moving back and making things unequal after they already have been. My suggestion is merging everything so the government gives only civil unions to everyone, keeping government out of the spiritual aspect of marriage.

[John Dibble]

All right, i've got another quibble with the law: Marriage isn't normally a Federal issue (or at least it used to not be... ). I'd support a law that gave perogative to the Regions - but this only puts the Feds even further into the fray.

Well, it happened when the Constitution here got the federal government involved.

[John Dibble]

So let me see if I get this. It would be changing it so all people who want to be married would only get Civil Unions from the government and it wouldn't be recognized as a marraige unless the churches and people want it?

Not exactly. The government would recognize only civil unions; the term marriage will be unknown to the law, and irrelevant to the government.

Right. People could define marriage however they like, having the government leave the spiritual aspect of it to them, and government would simply give what it recognizes as 'marriage' now the label civil union, which in the eyes of government is really what that is(government doesn't require love or commitment before God or anything of that sort to marry, it's simply a contract).