> > The problem is, some level of government has
>>to be in the marriage regulating business,
>>because you can get married civilly.
>
> Why not end this? Why have any kind of civil
>recognition of marriage?

I wish this were the case myself, but it's not going to happen any time soon. We have different tax laws for married couples, insurance companies often recognize married couples and allow spouses to be covered but not "domestic partners", spouses have inheritence rights if their partner dies without a will--all kinds of legal crap is tied up with the idea of marriage.

As for "civil unions", I too think that's a legitimate compromise. But I also think it'll never fly. I think part of it is that the majority of people who are "against" gay marriage (religious people who believe marriage is a sacrament) and people who are "for" gay marraige (gays and their activist supporters) will never see each other's position. The religious folks resent the idea of having to call a gay couple "married" the same way I'm sure a muslim would resent having to call me "Allah" even if it were my legal name. To them, it's just not right. They might be all for the alternate name of "civil union" as a compromise, but on the other side, I think, like commie_bat says, the gays would always see that as a form of discrimination.

I could be completely wrong. I don't know. I know an awful lot of people, religious or otherwise, are against gay "marriage" because they're against gays, or just think we shouldn't "endorse" that lifestyle. Others are against calling it "marriage" but would be ok with "civil union". But I have this feeling that gay activists aren't going to be happy with the "civil union" compromise, any more than the atheist activists are happy with the "moment of quiet reflection" compromise on the prayer-in-schools debate.

-- Dave