Originally Posted by
Lucio
The issue is actually a little more complex than the reporting of the views of the cardinal make out.
I'm all for anyone, regardless of gender (percieved or physical), to be able to make a commitment to another person, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as afforded people who undertake a traditional marriage, but right now, the arguement seems to be whether we can actually use the term that has been the province of a religious group for a very long period of time.
I can also see the worry that if we allow civil marriages to be undertaken by anyone, that the very next step will be to compel the Church of England to marry couples who don't meet their religious beliefs.
It all seems very much that one minority group is attempting to force it's views on another really.
And, in case you missed it, I'm all for allowing people of *any* gender or sexual orientation to recieve the full legal rights and responsibilties afforded a married couple, I just disagree that the word "marriage" needs to be attached to that bond for it to carry the same significance and that it's bordering on disrespectful for the CoE for us to insist that's the case.