Andrew:

"With the talk of a different (& I think unlikely) approach, of eliminating civil marriage in Canada (on the basis of, "the courts said we can't deny gays what straights have, so we'll take it away from all"), imagine what effect _that_ would have at the border if the only way to get a piece of paper was to get married in a church!"


This hits the nail right on the head!

But they can't do this. Everybody who wanted a simple ceremony at City Hall (or at the
In 'n Out Chapel in Las Vegas), to get married would not be called 'married'.

What would they be called? "Unionized"? "Coupled"? "Betrothed"? What ???

Marriage as an institution would be diminished greatly if we all had to be married in a church.

And not just in a church - - by a preist, minister, etc., who may insist on both being members
of the congregation, or make other concessions, 'contributions', pretense of certain beliefs,
or acknowledgement of the existance of a certain God, etc...


Then we would have three categories:

1)
"Married" by ceremony in a church of religion, by a church officer, and filling out state
marriage papers and receiving a certificate of marriage,

2)
"Unionized" in a ceremony in a private or state building, by a representative of the state,
and filling out state papers (formerly called "marriage" papers) and receiving a certificate
of civil union,

3)
"Common law" status without a ceremony, after co-habitation of one year (or some other period),
without papers, without a certificate, without many rights, but with some basic legal rights.


Why can't we reduce this to:

A)
"Married" in a ceremony, by a representative of the state, in a building or outside, signing
state marriage papers, and receiving a certificate of marriage and all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage,

B)
"Common law" status for those who do not wish to get married, as above in Item 3.


And "A)" and "B)" could be heterosexual, or homosexual.

Homosexuals are stuck in "Category B" right now in most of North America. Why make a
"Category C" just for them?


[This message has been edited by IJK (edited 09-18-2003).]