Take State Out of Marriage

[EXDIA53]

While I have no problem with Gay rights, marriage, etc., I can certainly see how the traditional wings of Christianity and Judaism, and probably all of Islam, would be revolted. There is a simple solution - not perfect, and of course some will have knee-jerk reactions, but it would work.
The state would issue "civil union" licenses to any couple, regardless of sexual makeup. This would provide the tax benefits, overcome the legal and employer benefits hurdle, and put all Americans on a level partnership playing field. After the civil union, a couple has the option to get married by the clergy of their choice. Marriage has become primarily a religious act in the west. In most of Europe, non-religious couples don't get married.
An interesting fact - in Plymouth Colony, run by "Puritans" (17th century Calvinists), it was illegal for clergy to perform marriages because, since Christ did not perform a marriage, it was considered a civil act.

[Newscaster]

We already have such certificates. They are called Marriage Licenses.

[Labrocca]

I agree with EXDIA53 abuot the civil union. I think it's how you would get moderate religious people such as myself to stop opposing it.

[Old Corps Gunny]

Tempest in a teapot. How many heterosexual couples are living together without benefit of either a religious or civil cermony?

[Alonzo]

I have two issues with this. One, I'm not comfortable with removing the state from marriage just so some religious guy doesn't have to see 2 married men or women. Sure it would effect everyone, but it's only done to keep marriage away from homosexuals and is discriminatory in that way.

Second, I'm not comfortable in forcing atheists, agnostics etc. into a situation where they either go to a church or don't get married. Marriage is often religious, but it takes the shape of the people involved. If they're not religious, then the marriage often isn't.

[Nathan Brazil]

While I have no problem with Gay rights, marriage, etc., I can certainly see how the traditional wings of Christianity and Judaism, and probably all of Islam, would be revolted.Â*Â*There is a simple solution - not perfect, and of course some will have knee-jerk reactions, but it would work.
The state would issue "civil union" licenses to any couple, regardless of sexual makeup.Â*Â*This would provide the tax benefits, overcome the legal and employer benefits hurdle, and put all Americans on a level partnership playing field.Â*Â*After the civil union, a couple has the option to get married by the clergy of their choice.Â*Â*Marriage has become primarily a religious act in the west.Â*Â*In most of Europe, non-religious couples don't get married.
An interesting fact - in Plymouth Colony, run by "Puritans" (17th century Calvinists), it was illegal for clergy to perform marriages because, since Christ did not perform a marriage, it was considered a civil act.


More or less. But go ahead and keep calling it marriage. The squabble is very entertaining.

[Nathan Brazil]

Tempest in a teapot.Â*Â*How many heterosexual couples are living together without benefit of either a religious or civil cermony?Â*Â*


Heteros can choose to get married, or not.

Homos do not have that choice. As a consequence, they can be denied benefits...though most states and many companies permit the designation of a "significant other"...but only if that other is the same sex as the employee.

The whole system is cockeyed. Let person marry whichever adult that agrees to it, and drop it. The nation is a secular nation, the argument is a religious argument. Goes back to the Fourteenth Amendment, again. No gender mentioned there.