In Reply: "Let one's religion define marriage. Let the state define legal unions."

In reply to: Federal Judge Declares California’s Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I've long thought the government should get out of the marriage business, though being more of a liberal than a libertarian, my thought was to replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" in all local, state, federal laws that mention the word. (And yeah, I'd be ok with allowing any two people to "unite" for the legal benefits, including parent/child, a pair of friends, ???. I also wouldn't object to removing some of the financial benefits, because I'm not so sure that couples need a government incentive to marry, in the first place.)

Religious institutions govern the sacrament of marriage however they see fit, and the government has no role, either in telling any denomination who must be allowed to marry, or who cannot marry. (aside consent laws, of course.) But religious institutions have no role in deciding who the government can/cannot legally unite, either.

Let one's religion define marriage.
Let the state enforce legal unions, and the contracts between the individual parties and between the "united" and the state that they create.

While I'd prefer that the state continue to recognize sacred marriage as one way to enter a civil union, I wouldn't be opposed to divorcing one from the other, making them completely separate entities, either... (Religious institutions are under no obligation to recognize civil unions, of course... though of course, they may, if they wish.)

Comment posted Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 02:36 AM, Outside The Beltway blog time

Previous discussions on the subject: Wingnuts & Moonbats: marriage