"Well, I think that 'marriage' has a religious connotation in this society, inYes, I agree that marriage has a religious connotation, as does the label. I also agree that it's difficult to build a consensus on the issue for this very reason. I have a radical proposal that will shock all who know me: no more 'marriage.'
our culture, that makes it very difficult to disentangle from the civil aspects
of marriage. And as a consequence it's almost -- it would be extraordinarily
difficult and distracting to try to build a consensus around marriage for gays
and lesbians. What we can do is form civil unions that provide all the civil
rights that marriage entails to same sex couples. And that is something that I
have consistently been in favor of. And I think that the vast majority of
Americans don't want to see gay and lesbian couples discriminated against, when
it comes to hospital visitations and so on."
If gay marriage cannot be sanctioned because marriage is a sacred institution with religious connotations, then it should not be the government's job to grant it. If civil unions will confer all the rights of heterosexual marriage, without the religious connotations, then everyone should be granted civil unions. If you want to be married, you can go to the representative of your deity/deities/goddesses/earth/Cthulu of choice and have him/her/zim/zir marry you. Remember, the original separation between Church and State was to protect the Church from the State, and not vice verse.
In the interest of keeping you informed on others' opinions, as well as my own endless stream of rants, please check out this panacea of opinions on the subject:
This gay old school conservative, whom I hate to love, but who makes me feel snuggly inside, who links to a legal blog, who give a lengthy refutation to this idiocy, which may be better summarized by Tempus Fugit, the only blogger on this subject with a sense of humor.
I don't know about you, but I need a nap. And a wife. Any takers?