[ilgipper]

No offense to John, but the new status quo already does all the harm he mentions. We have to act to distinguish between the government’s role in contract law and the religious role of marriage. Leave marriage to the church and let the government deal with tax breaks, hospital visits and other contractual roles. The idea that we undo what’s been done by separating marriage and civil unions is frankly 5 years too late. The court has spoken so we mush re-write the rules and take it back to the court to settle the next round. Removing the religious ceremony of marriage from government is the only remaining option. It’s up to states to remake their laws and remove marriage from government lexicon all together.

[Reddy]

“The idea that we undo what’s been done by separating marriage and civil unions is frankly 5 years too late. The court has spoken so we mush re-write the rules”

What if this were the mindset following the Dred Scott decision? Or Prohibition?

[gusty]

What the writer states is true, but irrelevant. What he says in regards of government's role in marriage is all fine and dandy, but what he forgets or does not contemplate is that leaving marriage in the hands of government is the equivalent of leaving it in the hands of politics. What that means is that for what the author proposes must be constantly defended every election day. He must win every election, he cannot afford to lose one. The scenario of winning every election for as far as the eye can see is total fantasy. History tells us that all triumphs and defeats are temporary things. Everything that government controls is subject to the verdict of the first Monday in November, thus to protect traditional marriage you must run the table in today's political reality. Take it away from government, and then the people decide for themselves what is their own definition of marriage, without worrying about the tyranny of majorities.

[ansel12]

Leave marriage to the Mosques, and the Episcopalians, and the Mormons, and the Hindus, and the church of Satan, and whatever else is called a church?

What good does that do? People can do that today, and they could 50 years ago, and in 1800, but the state still has to define legal marriage for itself, and that is the definition that will dominate the culture of our nation.

This is a battle that we have to win in public, in politics.