Replies

Because it is a religious rite and therefore outside the bounds of state interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's life, liberty, or property. It does none of these things, no more than heterosexual marriage (i think ALL marriage should be outside of state control; no licenses, and so on).

Right, and the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?

BTW, marriage is NOT solely a religious rite in America. Marriage does not exclude those who are not rlgious, it is a non discriminatroy secualr institution well established in American jurisprudence as a fundamental right.

jwalsh slips up:

the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?

Fully informed impartial juries of our peers are the designated 'arbiters' in our Republic, walsh. -- Not the government, as you advocate.

"Right, and the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?"

Um, maybe the people entering into the contracts? :)

"BTW, marriage is NOT solely a religious rite in America. Marriage does not exclude those who are not rlgious, it is a non discriminatroy secualr institution well established in American jurisprudence as a fundamental right."

I have been arguing that it shouldn't be a matter of civil law at all. A better word than *religious* would be that marriage (or unions, whatever you want to call them) are personal rites. It should be completely between the people entering into it. If they wish to get sanction from a particular religion for their union, that is their choice. If they don't desire any sanction from any religious group, that is also their choice. The government should not be involved in any way; that includes in granting them special privileges because they get married, like tax exemptions.

That way, if two gay men get married with the blessing of a religious group, or if they choose to just say vows to themselves with some friends over to witness, that would be their choice. Nobody else would be forced to acknowledge their union as valid if they didn't want to. There would be no civil benefits to getting married, for heterosexual or homosexual marriage (monogamous or polygamous). No tax breaks; nothing.