7 Nov
2014
7 Nov
'14
11:36 a.m.
On Fri, November 7, 2014 10:31 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
That way, the credulous pre-Enlightenment types can continue to define "marriage" however they want, and it won't affect anyone outside their cults.
Since the state is (at least nominally) secular, that won't be contentious AT ALL.
Sure, that would work. If the government got out of the marriage business altogether, provided recognition to civil unions, and 'marriages' could be up to individual establishments to determine what rules they apply. c..f, http://isocracy.org/node/15 -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt