Reply #19: It mixed with religion

[karynnj]

The problem is that "marriage" is both a sacrament and a legal state. Some Senator (I can't remember who, but he was Midwestern) recommended that the way to deal with it could be that the legal term be "civil union" or something other than marriage for all couples. All legal/govermental rights, priviledges, and responsibilities should then be expressed for that term.

From my perspective, this could get around the state/church problem - and is a more straight forward way of doing the same thing than "civil rights with all the priviledges of marriage". Politically, it might be harder to sell as it could be cast by opponents as taking "marriage away from everybody". (Both would need DOMA repealed to work - and very few Senators voted against it.)

The word "marriage" would then have no legal meaning - just as baptism doesn't. That word can then be used by churches. Of course, with the word having no legal meaning any one could use it - and it would likely continue to be the word actually used for the legal civil union ceremony.