May I suggest a slight change to the title of this article?

As inequality is currently the status quo in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, the term “gay marriage campaign” almost always implies efforts in favour of correcting the injustice. However, as we learn reading this article, the research shows that neither side gains traction through their publicity campaigns.

William makes a good point regarding the fact that inequality is the current status quo in most jurisdictions but I disagree with his latter point. A campaign may go either way, for or against a particular outcome. I don’t think its true that people only campaign for ‘correcting an injustice,’ and so I would say that the title applies: Gay marriage campaign fails to sway voters (on either side of the cause).

I have a kind of odd theory to this. Marriage is a word brought from various religions, and ended up in our judicial language.

In law, marriage falls under Business Law. So, a man and a women are married by their priest. They then go to sign the legal documents before entering the reception. Should the man pass away on the walk to sign the paperwork, the government recognizes no marriage. Let’s be a bit less dramatic, the man faints from pain and is rushed to the hospital. If the hospital follows its rules of no visitors but immediate family, that would leave the “bride” unable to see her fiance in the hospital, assuming a condition of being very ill.

What, I believe, and this is just me, is that we remove the word “marriage” from our laws, county, city, state, federal, even territorial. And, we replace it with something like “Domestic Partnership” (I have no doubt that there is a better term, but that is what I have at this moment.). And, then when in Las Vegas and Elvis handles the bringing together of the two people, they are in a Domestic Partnership. And, later, should they want the arrangement to carry on with a strong religious or spiritual portion of the agreement, they can go to their church, their spiritual guide, whatever, and then they can be “married” as the religious term indicates.

I am still lost on why people would fight this. We have a 51% divorce rate, we have 31% of couples “married” by a Justice of the Peace, a friend who got a pastor for the day course certificate, Elvis impersonators (I have met two people who have done this), and other ways. By keeping it in the Business Law area, things are find. And, it doesn’t affect anyone’s faith, how can it? If that were true, then my faith may upset your faith and then, which one should we legalize.

Until we get to something like the above, something fair, I feel that the laws should require the priest or Pastor, whomever, should be involved in the divorce, not just the lawyers. Also, the father who gave away the bride, the best man, heck, the entire guest list and the couple should explain why the promises they made to their God are being broken.

Just an idea.

I have something like the theory of odd to do so. Marriage is a word imported from different religions, and eventually in our judicial language.

By law, marriage falls under commercial law. Thus, men and women marry by their priest. They then sign the legal documents before entering the reception. If people die from walking up to the signing of the documents, the government does not recognize the marriage. Let’s slightly less dramatic, the person loses consciousness from the pain and rushed to the hospital. If the hospital follows its rules, but no visitors next of kin, it would leave a “bride” could not see her fiance at the hospital, considering the condition of being very bad.

What, in my opinion, is it just me, that we delete the word “marriage” with our laws, county, city, state, federal, even territorial. And we have to replace it with something like “domestic partnership” (I have no doubt that there is a better term, but what I have at the moment.). And then, when the Las Vegas Elvis handle the convergence of two people, they are in domestic partnership. And then, if they want the agreement to lead with strong religious or spiritual part of the agreement, they can go to their church, spiritual guidance, whatever, and then they can be “married” as a religious term indicates.

I’m still lost on why people fight this. We have a 51% divorce rate, we have 31% of married couples “married” to a magistrate, a friend who was pastor during the day a certificate of course, Elvis imitators (I met two people who did this), and in other ways. Holding it in the field of commercial law, things to find. And it does not affect the faith of anyone, as it can? If this were so, my faith may violate your faith and what one we should legalize.

While we were at something like the above, something right, I believe that laws should require a priest or pastor who would be involved in a divorce, not just lawyers. In addition, the father gave the bride, best man, damn it, the entire list of guests and the couple must explain why the promises they made to God they are violated.

Just an idea.