"Marriage" just needs to be re-defined.

Marriage as a LEGAL option should be just that.. a LEGAL contractual process..

LEGAL marriages may or may not be ALSO "sanctified" by whatever religious organization a couple may choose.

Churches were given the right to perform LEGALLY binding marriages, while the state offers the LICENSE to wed.

The ACT of getting married is NOTHING without the LEGAL LICENSE.

The license is the KEY.. and it's NOT a religious experience..it's a LEGAL one.. The process of licensing should be a two-part process.

1. get the license
2. go before a judge and BE married

The preacher/pastor/minister/Imam/Priest/reverend/whomever says "by the POWER vested in me, by the state of..., I pronounce you man & wife".

The POWER is from the SECULAR STATE..

There is no reason why the terminology could not be changed to "....pronounce you...blah blah blah..'a married couple'.."

At the core of this whole "faux controversy" is the same as its always been for republicans & religious zealots.. M O N E Y ..

When gay people who cannot marry, die, they cannot guarantee that their possessions and any entitlement to a pension or social security, will pass painlessly to their partner.

It's always about the money..

The social security system COUNTS on single people dying with no spouse .

The religious part is optional.

The state should not recognize religious weddings as legally binding; there should be a separate civil wedding open to all.

and IF the couple chooses, their religious ceremoney would be to sanctify it for the Church/Mosque/Temple/whatever

provided by city hall?

other than to get married to a specific person.

It's a health inspection for the benefit of the other party.

The wedding civil or religious, comes afterward, and that's the legally binding contract.

That was a good question though. :hi:

thanks for splainin. So everyone gets the license, and takes it to whoever..justice of the peace, priest, whatever and the ceremony makes it legal?

It really is a health inspection.

Some celebrity couple just had their civil ceremony one day and the religious one the next day.

They eloped and had a civil ceremony. Then after they came back home, they got married in the Church. That's a Catholic thing, not a legal thing.

You can have a religious wedding also (and many do) but religious officials are not authorized by the government to perform legal marriages.

I recommend that we remove the authority for religious officials to perform legally binding marriages and let just perform the religious ceremony. Make it a requirement that the marriage license process is a government function.

Outline all the responsibilities in the contract. Sign it. Record it.

If you want a marriage on top of that, go to church.

I say civil unions should be the limit to government involvement. Let the government influence stop at the legal and financial aspects and leave the social aspects to the individuals own social groups, organizations, or institutions.

The term 'marriage' is the issue.

Just call it 'union" and the problem won't exist.

I notice you said that the terminology could be changed to "pronounce you....blah blah blah..."a married couple"

Since we are re-defining, couldn't we be a bit more inclusive?

Some of us find joy and happiness in relationships involving more than just two people.

That would nip a lot of bad marriages and horrific divorces right in the bud.