‘Same Sex Partnerships’ is currently challenging the representatives in the United States Senate:

“A historic Senate hearing on a possible repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) revealed a large divide on beliefs about the definition of marriage but also showcased opposing arguments on a subject traditionalists say is often misunderstood — the purpose of marriage and government’s role in it,” says Michael Faust.

If the term ‘marriage’ does replace the term ‘civil partnership’ then surely another description needs to be found for heterosexual marriage. Otherwise wouldn’t the term ‘marriage’ lose its definition just as the description of what was once understood by the word ‘gay’. Describing someone as gay because they are ‘bright and lively’ is no longer appropriate, the term can no longer be used in that sense. Bill Meuhlenberg, ‘down under’, takes up the difficulty of trying to compare like with like. Meuhlenberg in The Australianwriting under the title, “Heterosexual marriage is society’s bedrock“,

“Governments have an overwhelming interest in heterosexual marriage. They have no reason to confer special rights and privileges on other types of sexual relationships. People are free to engage in those relationships, but they cannot expect to see their relationships elevated to that of heterosexual marriage.
“Indeed, talk of inequality and discrimination is off base here. Those arguing for same-sex marriage are mixing apples with oranges. Everyone is entitled to the benefits of marriage as long as they meet the conditions and requirements of it.
“Homosexual relationships simply do not meet the criteria, the most basic being to have one man and one woman. Governments have no obligation whatsoever to treat unequal things equally, or to grant the benefits of marriage to those who refuse to meet its minimum requirements.”

Says Meuhlenberg, “40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children.
“The studies make it clear that every child should have the basic human right of being raised by his or her own mother and father. And a recent Galaxy poll found that a full 86 per cent of Australians believe children should be raised by their biological parents.
Says Meuhlenberg, “Heterosexual marriage is society’s most profound and valuable institution. It has been the bedrock of nations from time immemorial. To radically alter the nature of marriage and family is a recipe for trouble.”
As for the UK “It is reported that “On 26 August 2003, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, both British university professors, legally married in British Columbia, Canada, however on their return their marriage was not recognised under British law. Under the subsequent Civil Partnership Act, it was instead converted into a civil partnership.”
“Although “The couple sued for recognition of their marriage,” “The High Court announced its judgement on 31 July 2006, ruling that their union would not be granted marriage status and would continue to be recognised in England and Wales as a civil partnership. The President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, gave as his reason that “abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership”, and that marriage was an “age-old institution” which, he suggested, was by “longstanding definition and acceptance” a relationship between a man and a woman.[13][14] He agreed with the couple’s claim that they were being discriminated against but argued that this was justified on the grounds of protecting the traditional definition of marriage.[15]” This sounds very much like Meuhlenberg’s ‘mixing apples with oranges’.

But for the US, battles are continuing to be fought with the outcome of the definition of marriage still uncertain. But what really is at issue? For Dale Schowengerdt it is a question of religious liberty - the freedom to follow one’s religious convictions will be curtailed, with the threat of prosecution and loss of business or employment.

This has already taken place in the UK. Parents with religious convictions have been threatened with prosecution.  A Christian counsellor was sacked for declining to counsel Same-Sex couples because of his beliefs. Christians have been considered unfit to foster or adopt because of their belief on Christian marriage. Christian B. & B. owners were taken to court and made to pay compensation and costs for denying a gay couple accommodation, despite that one could easily Google for Gay B & Bs or hotels, which is being investigated by the ‘Equalities Commission‘.

But if gays want gay friendly accommodation - which online advertising suggests, why shouldn’t Christians be allowed the same? The Equality and Human Rights Commission is now seeing that Christians are being unfairly treated in the UK. Even the medical profession is becoming more open for practitioners to share their faith with patients if helpful.

But one can see the fears in the discussion taking place in the USA. It is the fear of the militant gay who will seek to exact penalties on the offenders of the law that favour them as expressed by Dale Schowengerdt. The case continues.