> > If they are the same, why not give them the same name? Labelling them as being different will not encourage them to be treated the same. Names and labels have great emotive power, and insisting on the term "civil union" for something you freely admit to being identical to "marriage" can only make people think of those so labelled as of less value.
>
> That's kind of the point. I support the right of gays or whomever to marry, by which I mean bind themselves to a contract and call it marriage. I would prefer the state had nothing to do with any marriage at all, but state recognition of gay marriage is a tolerable compromise. It's perfectly fine with me if other people want to embrace the redefinition of marriage. But I'm not going to treat their arrangements as of equal value to a real marriage.

What counts as a "real marriage"? Is it defined religiously? If so, is a marriage officiated by a Baptist of equal value to one performed by a Roman Catholic? What about a Jewish or Hindu wedding?

When Mormons allowed polygamous marriages, were these "real"?

Were marriages in Britain before 1563 "real"? Before the Council of Trent, weddings were an entirely secular affair, and it was only a "redefinition" of marriage turned it into a religious event.

If it isn't a religious definition, then what?

Of course, if you believe that the state should have no involvement in marriage means giving up approximately 1,400 legal benefits from inheriting intestate, immigration rights*, child support... the list is endless. But, having said that, if you want a wedding with which the state has nothing to do, it's easy to arrange: simply don't apply for a marriage licence. You can have the religious ceremony without it being in any way legally binding. Surely that's a suitable compromise?

wintermute

*If the state didn't involve itself in marriages, it would be almost impossible for me to be in the same country as my wife, so this is or particular interest to me.