Wark wrote:
Personally, I think, since civil marriage is a fusion of state and religious values, there should be no civil marriage. The religious institutions, whether they be Christian or otherwise, heterosexual-only or homosexual-friendly, seem to do a fairly good job setting these things up themselves.
A civil union is legal recognition of married status and is the important thing for getting all the spousal benefits for health care, legal status in case of death or injury, inheritance, child custody, etc. Every recognized marriage incorporates a civil union, but any kind of traditional wedding has no legal significance beyond that.
More directly on topic, doesn't the constitution just stipulate that the government can not mandate or suppress any religion? i.e. No playing favorites?
Granted it's been interpreted more strictly than that, but the motto, and pledges seem pretty cosmetic when you put them side by side with politicians that make a public show of their faith and how it affects their decision making.
Third. I believe it's already acceptable to omit portions of pledges and oaths if the participant finds them offensive. For example, standing quietly during the pledge of allegiance in stead of reciting.
I think this has come up in the past when some people have raised religious objections to taking oaths (oaths in general, or oaths in the name of God). So legislation for removing the references is somewhat redundant. You don't have to say them and no one can make you say them. Contrawise, removing them is essentially forcing another group NOT to express itself.