You do realize you made an indirect fruit reference to gay marriage? =^-^= Just teasing ya. ^^;;

I recently mentioned to someone else concerning word evolution. Well, what you described is law evolution. The thing is? We have people fighting against the further evolution of the marriage law, and people fighting for it. But ultimately, this is a Constitutional issue.

If marriage is ultimately a law based on religious tradition, it is a violation of the Separation of Church and State doctrine in the Constitution. Thus civil marriage itself is Unconstitutional and needs to be eliminated as a legal apparatus. Considering the massive amounts of law that is based on marriage as a civil device, eliminating civil marriage is a no-go... unless we instead shift to another venue that arose to try and go around the Gay Marriage conundrum: Civil Unions.

Thus we eliminate Civil Marriage and have all future marriages become Civil Unions. All existing marriages are grandfathered over as Civil Unions. Marriage then becomes a matter of the Church, while the legality of what was marriage is declared a Civil Union from this point forward.

Now we have a different question here: is preventing homosexuals from having Civil Unions a violation of their Constitutional Rights? Yes. But there is no Separate But Equal doctrine here as everyone has Civil Unions, and marriage itself is now a religious device that has zero relevance on the legal front.

Rob H., who probably should have had coffee before writing that. ^^;;