Rob Coffey wrote:Matthew D wrote:Mark Head wrote:I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.
I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.
I also support separation of marriage and state.
But why would the religous ceremony be "legally non-binding"? One of the few (in my mind) legit purposes of the state is contract enforcement. The bindingness of a marriage contract at that point would depend on what the couple put in it (plus, if they see fit, some church or etc, which could be a 3rd party to the contract). It would put an end to no-fault divorce, unless you put a no-fault clause in the contract.
I don't know enough about contracts and fault in regards to marriage to really discuss this point.
I just think the religious aspect of marriage should be ceremonial in relation to the state. The contract should be through the state. In regards to 3rd party participants, I would have to do more research.
The "highest" state-related level should be the civil union. Abolish state-sponsored marriage.