DeacInVermont
Well-known member
This is the part that is confusing me
He's saying that the government uses "marriage" as a condition for receiving benefits, or as a label for some other purpose. That worked pretty well until lately. Since marriage is a religious institution, government would be better off using some other qualifier than "marriage" since it isn't government's place to define "marriage".
In other words, leave marriage to religions and let government create/define a secular form of partnership to further it's policies. At least, that's how I'm interpreting his comments.