I think people need to look at the history of marriage: is it primarily a secular institution, or was it created by religion. I do not know the answer. This raises the question that will never be asked: should the state even be involved in giving marriage licences, or should it be a private contract?

Regardless, it seems the religious folk need to realize that in their private activities and churches, then can maintain their standards for marriage, such as man and woman.

Lastly, I for one wonder if the issue would go away if the state sanctioned marriage benefits were eliminated. The fact is it creates discrimination against single people and those who do not want children.

In conclusion the obvious, so obvious it will never be considered, is to convert marriage into a private contractual agreement. The standards written in can be created by the people getting married, or if they choose the religious institution they choose to be subjected too.

Hey, but if we did that the state would lose power, people would have 1 less issue to fight over and one less means of intruding into other peoples private choices, so it will never happen and likely never even be mentioned as an option in the debate.

Marriage started as a secular institution, I believe. It didn't become a sacrement in the Christian religion until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s. Before then you couldn't even be married in a church because marriage dealt with sex and was therefore dirty. Sometimes they were held outside of churches.

I did a bit of reading about it a while back when my parents were trying to insist on giving me a church wedding. Because marriage was religious. I simply proved it had a much longer history being secular. I got married at by Justice of the Peace.

I can't claim to be an authority, but I did have to do a lot of reading to convince my dad.

Qracoon--

that's interesting. Do you have a good source to pick up, off of the top of your head?