Dare call it marriage
The editorial "Civil unions for all: Gay couples should have equal rights" (Our View, Sept. 5) argued to reserve the term "marriage" "for ceremonies performed and sanctioned by a church or religious group" and "civil unions would become the government-sanctioned joining of two people."
I am a heterosexual female who married the man I love 60 years ago in a civil ceremony that has never been consecrated by any clergy in any church. Am I therefore not "married"? I don't think so.
I resent anyone saying that I cannot use the word "married" to describe my relationship with my spouse. By the same token, I imagine that many same-sex couples likely resent the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" to define their legally sanctioned lifestyle because this term degrades (however unintentionally) the dignity of the people involved.