Reply #4: Right, and that's why marriage laws have been extended

[Warpy]

to gay and lesbian couples in a few places. Access to that particular body of law is guaranteed by the constitution, unaffected by the morbid religious scruples of administrators.

Unfortunately, marriage is tied up with a lot of pink ribbons to a tremendous amount of baggage. It is necessary to define what the body of civil law concerning it actually does: promote an unrelated individual into the position of first degree relative. All the other stuff is just there in case of property squabbles and offspring distribution and support and can be gotten around by enough contracts. However, no other body of law allows a partner to visit in an ICU or claim a body after death.

Personally, I think a civil domestic partnership should be issued when both partners present at the county courthouse and sign the marriage license in front of witnesses. From that point on, they should be covered by marriage law. Church marriage is optional, and those churches with official policies of declaring homosexuality icky don't have to perform them. There are plenty of liberal, welcoming churches out there to perform a marriage ceremony.

I do know there are a lot of straight couples out there who would stop with the civil domestic partnership, hoping to escape a lot of the sexist baggage around marriage. It's already happening in Canada.

However, the law needs to apply to all consenting adult couples. We can't accept anything else unless we want to open a real can of worms by revoking the equal treatment amendment.