I suppose they just do what they want, have the ceremony in any way that they want, like any couple does. Their choice. There is no legal requirement to have a female bridesmaid. I hardly think a bridesmaid has a place at a wedding where there is no bride anyway. If that is messed up in your mind I highly doubt you will invited to such a wedding anyway.
I think ideally marriages should be issued by churches and 'civil unions' would be issued by the government. Obviously that won't happen, and I still think there should be some distinction should be made between gay and straight partnerships, but regardless of that and of what people think of gays, giving them equal rights is only fair.
Bollocks! I am married to my wife, we had a wedding and now we have a marriage. The fact that there was no religious content at our wedding doesn't cancel our right to call it a marriage. Religions don't own the word marriage. Look up any dictionary for a defintion
God doesn't only reside in churches nor does he favor marriage locations but instead, IMV, he blesses those that are truly in love and want to live a good life together. I find that only Conservatives feel the need to label anything and try to control everything. Perhaps for once, they might want to try "live and let live". This goes double for the "Righteous" that take every word in the bible as the literal Word of God although it was written by imperfect humans centuries ago...
Probably because every civilization needs rules and tradition to exist and progress. True conservativism isn't about big government and giving them the power to regulate social customs. That's liberalism.
Cman, I respect everyones right to believe what ever they like. What I am opposing is the idea that only a religious based wedding ceremony can be called a marriage and that I, not having a religious ceremony, must refer to my marriage as a 'civil union'.
Someone filled me in on what happened with Murrell, would it have been so hard to fill me in on it instead of being an asshole?
I disagree. Every Civilization needs to evolve and grow and change as their enviorment changes around them. Rules? Of course but those rules need to be revisited as well as times change. Tradition is good, but its up to each new generation to create its own traditions. By refusing to change, adapt and be flexible, a society risks becoming stale and obsolete. Red China isn't nearly as red as it used to be. The old Soviet Union has been replaced by and large by a more modern society. Both countries had to accept social change in their "traditions" or both would have collasped from decay within. As far as the bolded part, too bad the GOP has done exactly the opposite isn't it.
Don, I'm right there with ya. Whether you get married in a church or city hall, you're still married. I would resent anyone that say that unless you have a respresentative of a particular religious bent conducting the ceremony, you're not married. Civil Union is a cop out and a pacifier to those self-appointed defenders of God (Like God needs defending...)
That example doesn't exactly help your case against conservatism considering Russia was a socialist country and is now a republic.
We already had this discussion. According to the authority on the English language, the OED, marriage has never been exclusively between a man and a woman. In fact, the current "edition" includes same sex marriages in the definition.
I really don't have a problem with the SC's decision. Their hands were tied. I have a problem with a system that allows the majority of the public, many of whom are less than well informed, to rewrite the Constitution.
