Actually, they are not calling it a marriage.
They are defining it as a “civil union”
The question should not be “is it a marriage?”
It should be “should the government accept a civil union with the same weight as a marriage?”
Civil unions already exist but are not officially recognized as a legal entity. By defining it as a civil union, they are not trying to redefine marriage.
That’s Brazil. In America, it’s different.
Already, anybody can be as a beneficiary to a will or insurance. The checking account thing is not illegal either here or there.
What they are looking for is a legal status equivalent to what is defined as a marriage now.
I am not against the calling it a civil union. Frankly call it scrizzle for all I care, but don’t call it marriage because it is not. That already has a definition.
What they are really after is social equality to marriage and since they can’t get it willingly, the will do it legally and force it. However, even that will never work.
And because it is morally wrong, they will never get it accepted morally.
It is all “civil union” under the law.
This is about government as god.
If the government grants rights then government can grant or remove rights.
In this case the government is now the arbiter of family unit.
Inalienanble rights derive from God.
government is god
inalienable rights derive from government.
THAT is the goal.