Marriage either has legal status or it doesn't.

If it does, then of course it's for the state to define, because the state makes the laws.

If you're happy for marriage not to have legal status, then by all means, go ahead and have whatever religious or non-religious ceremonies you like, and call them whatever you want.

Personally I strongly favour the latter. I would have a single form of legal civil partnership, for purely legal purposes, and allow anyone to enter into such a partnership with any other person - spouse, relative, whoever. Keep this totally separate from whatever religious stuff people want to do, and leave that totally up to their religious group to define - but give it no legally-significant status outside of that group.

Solved.

I'm all for the latter. Get the government (including state governments) out of a religious ceremony. There should only be a generic civil union for legal purposes and no state recognized marriage.

I would put restrictions on the civil union, though, that requires both participants be able to enter into a legal contract (so no kids and no animals or inanimate objects).

why both?

i say let anyone -- however many -- contract as they please

I was just meaning that all participants had to be legally able to enter into a contract. And while I support polygamy form a marriage perspective, we have to set boundaries on the civil union to prevent their abuse for tax purposes or problems down the line on power of attorney issues. So civil unions should be person to person and be the *primary* union in the household. You can have all the concubines you want, but only one can have power of attorney should you be unable to conduct business yourself (i.e. you died).

I think Obama should have the right to sleep with either party of a marriage before they enter into said contract.

Hear hear, about time we start instituting prima nocta.

Yeah! prima nocta...and...uh....sleeping with the bride, too! Uh....

+1 Jamie and draug <3

Jamiet99uk: Yeah, I've been saying that for a while now. I've never understood the religious right's reasoning. Either there is seperation of church of state (so that it doesn't matter if same-sex 'marriages' are allowed) or there isn't. If these groups insist that marriage is a religious concept, then the state could easily say 'screw you' and rename government-recognized marriages 'civil unions'.

After all, though it depends somewhat on what country or state you are in, even opposite-sex civil unions give woefully inadequate legal protection and benefits when compated to marriages. What is more, if same-sex unions are relegated to a seperate legal category than marriage, then it doesn't matter if the legal rights and privileges of the two categories are exactly identical since the fictive legal distinction would still leave the open the door to easy legislative or judicial discrimination down the road.

At least in the US, 'separate but equal' is not a valid doctrine and hasn't been since the Civil Rights Movement won.

"leave the open the door" should be 'leave the door open', of course.

Of course, what some were trying to do in Oklahoma, denying marriage services to all, is the opposite of what I am saying.

Did I just get a +1 from ILN?

#firsttimeforeverything

Yeah, because both sides of the political spectrum actually can come together and form a rational, morally appealing and beneficial conclusion since many political ideologies actually come together in many ways... we ought to try that more often.

Amen.