I don't see your argument as being well thought out on a couple of fronts. First, the definition of marriage is not an evolving definition. The institution has been around, in a variety of forms, for thousands of years. In all of its forms it has been a union of man and woman. It is quite premature to call a decade old social movement an evolutionary force. Especially when that movement is not supported by the majority of members in that society.

Secondly, you go from the real issue of man-on-man and woman-on-woman marriage and try to tackle it in religious terms. The definition of marriage as being a union of man and woman cuts across religious differences so your examples of cross-religious marriages do not defy the fundamental definition of marriage.

Everything is evolving. Just because something hasn't changed in a long time, doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't.

Most religions once insisted -- and many still do -- that one marry within one's religion. That was a restriction that stood for hundreds of years (and probably evolved from edicts against marrying outside your tribe, except for when it's diplomatically acceptable) but which is now a less steadfast rule.

My point is: there is a definite difference between religious marriage and what the government calls marriage. And I am fine with religions banning gay marriage -- god knows they have enough silly rules, what's one more? But what the government labels "marriage" is actually more akin to a business arrangement, in which civil rights and responsibilities, from child custody to tax-paying, are regulated according to marital status. There's no reason a gay couple, or for that matter Cinnamon and I, should have to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to gain the legal status that marriage affords.

If the government chooses to call gay marriage "civil union" that's great, because it takes away the religious connotations of the word marriage. The point is, that religious connotation needs to be removed from the federal definition of marriage, not just for gays but for everyone and anyone who doesn't want religion to be a part of their union.

If the business end of things is all that matters, then what is the legitmacy of a civil union?

If it is just a transaction, then it shouldn't be honored with the rights and priveledges and resposibilities of a real marriage.

I didn't say it was a business transaction, I said it was "more akin to a business arrangement," by which I meant it was similar to an article of incorporation or a limited partnership. And as far as the government is concerned, the "business end of things" is all there is to a marriage.

To counter, if the religious aspects of marriage are all that matter, why register with the state?

I'll tell you why: to gain all "the business side of things." If you don't it's not a legal marriage in the eyes of the state.

That is naive to think that there is no other rooted government interest in marriage other than the business side. Why else would there be an incentive provided by the government to get married in the first place?

Nevertheless, it's true. The government does not recognize religious marriages unless they're accompanied by the proper state paperwork.

I'm not saying the government has no interest in marriage -- or rather, civil unions -- but there's no rational reason not to extend the benefits to "nontraditional" unions as well. I can't see what it would hurt, other than certain people's perception of what marriage is (which the government has no business regulating anyway).

Don't call it marriage if you don't want to. What it's called has little bearing -- the substance is what's important.

I can't say why else the govt would want to know who I pledged my love to 'cept the business side like Andrew explained. Does anyone?

A rational reason would be that if you grant the legal status of married couples to "non-traditional unions", then how do you define what is a "non-traditional union"? Is it only gays? Is it gays and some couples who fit certain requirements? Sounds like there would be an incredible amount of speculation going on.

What is going to stop clever roomates from getting a civil union to get the financial benefits and then getting the contract nullified when they move out?

What's wrong with that? Doesn't sound too different than a marriage. And since most of the benefits bestowed on married couples are long-term, it's unlikely mere roommates would bother. About the only thing I can think of on the plus side in that scenario would be access to health benefits from an employer, but many companies already grant coverage to domestic partners.

I agree that a definition would need to be created. How about: A civil union is between two (and only two) humans, unrelated to each other. Disqualifies all the nuts who'd marry their dogs/boats/cars/five people.

I love how these religious conservatives get up on their high horse about how marriage is about a man and a woman joining together to procreate and all, which is such a limited view on marriage. If that's the case, then why not forbit sterile people from marrying? Why not forbid those who do not intend to have children from marrying?

Their other argument is that it weakens the institution of marriage, which is again a rediculous assertion. As much as the religious right wants to believe that homosexuality is a sinful, consious decision it's a biological trait. Those attracted to the opposite sex will still want to marry in the "traditional" sense, but givng the opportunity to express their deep feelings to those who are attracted to somebody of the same sex is only making things equal.

*ahem*

Pardon me, Benjy, but on behalf of at least some religious conservatives, let me say that you've created quite a scarecrow there. I am Catholic and a registered Republican, but somehow I manage to completely agree with Andrew that there is both a legal and a religious aspect to marriage. To put it simply, the American lay person shouldn't press gay unions on Catholicism, but the Catholic clergy shouldn't press Catholicism on the American unions, either.

Let Catholics set their ideals. Let Protestants set theirs. And let neither of them determine the American ideal which should simply include two consenting adults.