In a recent conversation I was having recently with another member about Gay Marriage, something occurred to me:

Marriage is really an institution of both religion and law. And it would seem that a lot of the controversy regarding gay marriage comes from the term "marriage" and it's religious implications.

Well what about the idea of a grand change? I mean lets face it, prenuptial agreements, divorce court, alimony, child support, marital assets, health insurance, death benefits, etc, ain't exactly part of Saturday or Sunday's sermon.

But of course marriage need also be an institution of community, court, law, etc.

So what if, on a grand scale, there was a change in VERBIAGE.

Meaning. Today, In order to get legally married you must go through the state (marriage certificate, etc.), then there is the ceremonial (and often religious) rights that happen shortly after, next day, etc..

What if on a grand scale, the word MARRIAGE was taken out of legal and state jargon? What if there were no state recognized MARRIAGE only state recognized UNIONS. Be it male and female or any other variation there in.

And what if the word MARRIAGE were reserved only for RELIGIOUS ceremonies.

So according to the STATE, anyone can enter into a UNION that agrees to do so (no such thing as Marriage anymore).

This way, everyone is being treated EQUALLY under the STATE and there is no grand opposition to the term MARRIAGE, which could be reserved for religious ceremonies..

Am I making any sense?

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss