"the government should stop defining marriage of any form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all these rights under civil union"
I don't see this as anything other than arguing a trivial semantic distinction - that we should use the word "union" for government rights granted to couples instead of "marriage"?
Even if you are right about a slightly better word, who cares? What is the effective difference? Religious and government marriages are different. A "marriage" license issued by a government is indistinguishable from a civil union license.
Why grant religions a monopoly on the use of the word.
In all honesty, this is a non-sensical frankenstein remnant of the separate but equal argument for marriage and civil union. It really has no value.
I don't see this as anything other than arguing a trivial semantic distinction - that we should use the word "union" for government rights granted to couples instead of "marriage"?
Even if you are right about a slightly better word, who cares? What is the effective difference? Religious and government marriages are different. A "marriage" license issued by a government is indistinguishable from a civil union license.
Why grant religions a monopoly on the use of the word.
In all honesty, this is a non-sensical frankenstein remnant of the separate but equal argument for marriage and civil union. It really has no value.