Sounds good. Did Hillary Clinton every say something to this effect? Because to me her past statements sounded much more like leaving the legal concept of marriage unperturbed and adding an additional category of civil unions with an unspecified set of equivalent rights, in other words, a separate legal designation with equal rights. She has now adopted a better position (and good for her), but still short of the ideal position that you've outlined, which is government indifference to marriage, and recognition of indistinguishable civil union for all couples.jman111 wrote:Marriages could continue to exist as religious institutions while government could replace "marital rights" with "civil union rights".
I would go further to say that the government shouldn't recognize couples at all, it should only recognize voluntary contracts between individuals, however grouped, and should give no special benefits to particular contract types.
They shouldn't be.jman111 wrote:Why should governmental policies be dictated by the policies of specific religions?