Replies

It is simply not going to be possible to limit the definition of marriage. I say it is time to get the government, at all level, out of the marriage business altogether. People got married long before the State of California started issuing licenses. Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place. The only thing the state can do is continually broaden the definition to include whatever group wants to sue it next.

Since the state got involved in marriage, it has done nothing but erode the sanctity of the institution. This is because the state can never create -- it can only destroy. Time to keep them as far away from the institution of marriage as possible.

I don't know why heterosexuals should be all enthusiastic about maintaining their status of being the only ones who must to knuckle under to the petty authority of the state to register who they are going to spend their time with. It is simply none of the state's business, and it never has been. It is just societal inertia that makes the state's definition of marriage into the definition of marriage.

Absolutely Correct! Great post. The religious implications of marriage properly belong to the religions. The loudest cries against gay "marriage" come from mainstream Christians, and I certainly applaud and defend their right to hold their beliefs and tenets sacred. I have, however, several family members who are gay, and whether it is a "lifestyle choice", a "damned-to-hell" disease, or just who they are, is a debate that I will not engage in here. What is clear though, is that committed gay partners do not have the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts. "Civil" being the operative word.

I for one could not imagine being sexually attracted to another man. And as a reasoning, thinking, man, I must consider that these men and women DON'T have a choice about to whom they are attracted. (I guess I did go a little into that debate) If gay partners could register a partnership with the civil authorities the same way that you and I register our marriages, then both sides would benefit. The risk and financial cost of divorce would keep people from entering a union on a whim, or just to beat the system, and at the same time, people who are in love and committed to one another could get the civil recognition and all of the legal protections that come with marriage.

I know that I am probably in a minority on this issue, and I invite all reasoned response. I am not looking to start a flame war, but rather prompt some people, hopefully, to look inside and see what their real objection is to this idea. Keep the religions sacred, let them decide for themselves if they will choose to honor or recognize a gay marriage, but let all Americans have the same benefits, rights, AND responsibilities.

Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place.

Well put. This has been my own view for years.

I'm sure I'm in a very small minority on FR, but for the record I agree with the logic of the rulings in all of these recent cases. Religious marriages recognized by private organizations are the business of those private organizations, but state-registered civil marriages -- whether called 'marriages' or 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever -- should be available to same-sex couples for as long as they're available at all. The various courts that have addressed this issue in the famous cases of the past few years have gotten the Constitutional part right. (I only wish they were as zealous in protecting Second Amendment rights.)

The power of the government is not a legitimate weapon in a 'culture war' -- on either side. The government simply has no legitimate role in the marriage-definition game (other than restricting unions to parties legally competent to give consent).

What you stated is pretty much my position; though in practice there is going to be some untangling of the law. A concern I have is that gay "marriage" will be a tool to impose costs on third parties; ie employers or the taxpayers, of benefits that were created for a traditional marriage and family. While many large corporations now cheerfully provide equal benefits to gay "life partners" this should not be required; and the taxpayers should be spared another raid on their bank accounts.