[Modernman]

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. ... Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power.

Interesting point. I'm starting to lean towards the view that government should simply get out of the marriage business. Allow consenting adults to enter into any contract they desire (excluding contracts that would be illegal on other grounds: slavery contracts, etc.), in any combination of consenting adults they desire (1 man plus 1 woman, 2 homosexuals, 3 men and 1 woman, 4 heterosexual roommates). The government should take no view as to what defines a "marriage" or "civil-union" or whatever. If a religion wants to recognize such a contract as a marriage, great.

[Mamzelle]

Next step: decriminalize bigamy.

[RogerFGay]

Interesting point. I'm starting to lean towards the view that government should simply get out of the marriage business. Allow consenting adults to enter into any contract they desire

That's kind of the way it was before the federal reforms, given to us by Congress. The details of the marriage "contract" had been worked out through many generations of limited government involvement in private family issues; ie. when one spouse sued another in civil court. Basic civil rights were applied to each, circumstances were taken into consideration, rights and obligations divied up --- generally what was worked out was at least in theory minimum government intrusion (all that other stuff had something to do with reality -- the courts simply doing the job of settling disputes.)

[Volunteer]

I like your post. I have a similar take on the matter. Marriage, as my Church teaches it, is a contract between a man & a woman. It is a sacrament in my faith (Roman Catholic).
However, on a daily basis we see not "till death do we part" but rather, "when something better comes along, I am totally out of here."

I am not in favor of ANY law that forces the Roman Catholic faith to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples.
But, if the law wants to recognize such unions - then I have no problem with that. Along with that, they get the marriage penalty tax, alimony, child custody battles, child support, etc.

[sandbar]

>The government should take no view as to what defines >a "marriage" or "civil-union" or whatever.

Talk about a probate nightmare.