I think they should stay out of marriage since it's almost entirely a religious construct. Instead, they can be in the business of civil partnerships, which dictate those things required by law - HIPPA/healthcare rights, inheritances, child custody, death rights, and so on, and so forth.

Then "marriage" can be defined by your religion. My wife and I were not married in a Catholic Church. Therefore, in the eyes of the church, we're not married. That's fine with me. In the same vein, I'm friends with a gay couple who's synagogue married them before their state legalized gay marriage. In their eyes, they were married, whether or not the state acknowledge inheritance/HIPPA rights.

It seems relatively logical, but it's never come up in conversation. Let the state make rules around civil partnerships, and let religions deal with marriage - which, basically, says that if you say you're married, then cool - you're married.

>Let the state make rules around civil partnerships, and let religions deal with marriage

That's exactly how it works now. One is called civil marriage and one is called religious marriage. The church sets their own rules and the government sets theirs. You can be in one, the other, or both at the same time.

Civil marriage is a legal contract, religious marriage is decided by the church and it is whatever the church says it is. The government lets clergy also officiate civil marriage but it doesn't have to. It does because it makes sense. You wouldn't have to need a civil official and a religious official at your wedding. You wouldn't have to go through two ceremonies, one at the church and one at city hall.

Don't put too much thought in the fact that both contain the word "marriage" in them.

Goodrich vs. Dept of Health (MASS.) (emphasis mine):

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society.... The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.... the arguments made... failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

I agree.

I've long thought that a solution to the "gay marriage" "problem" would be for states to get out of the marriage business and just allow one adult to specify another adult as the legal party for all the things that a spouse gets under marriage.

Then there's no debate in terms of the state because the state doesn't define marriage at all! But that just exposes how some people WANT marriage to be man+woman to enforce their belief system.

I've heard this argument before, but I'm not sure I understand how that is different from what's going on now. It seems to just be semantics. The Catholic Church is still free to only marry Catholics and ignore the rest. That doesn't change. And people are still able to go through religious marriage ceremonies without bothering to be recognized by the state.

Personally I was married in a religious ceremony and then had to submit paperwork for it to be recognized civilly.

> The Catholic Church is still free to only marry Catholics and ignore the rest. That doesn't change.

The next round of lawsuits will see if you're right. There is some real risk you are mistaken. If not with regard to the Catholic Church, then with regard to private organizations recognizing or participating in marriage ceremonies.

> I think they should stay out of marriage since it's almost entirely a religious construct.

You can have two atheists go before another atheist, who won't invoke any deity, and marry them based on the rules of the state.

That religious people get involved in marriage no more makes it "almost entirely a religious construct" than anything else religious people do.

Why concede to religion that which it has not earned and to which it has no special right?