Here's my take, only half-though-out.
Government shouldn't have any hand in Marriage in the first place. Marriage is an institution, and a religious one.
When our government missed this fact and became involved in the legislation of some parts of marriage - in order to promote a more healthy family unit, perhaps - we took a misguided step.
Some of the rights that come with marriage are self-evidently critical to a well-functioning society. No man (or woman) is an island, and it's critical to be able to form units that are legally bound together as a man and a woman are in marriage. Two people pooling their assets can obviously go further than either one might alone.
However, I believe government should stop where the legal rights do. It should be able to recognize a contract between two people to become legally bound.
Marriage, on the other hand, should be in the realm of the church. Two people who wish to get married would then seek the proper government papers to get their legal rights, and a priest to get their spritual ones.
This way, government has no handin saying what marriage is supposed to mean and who is and isn't entitled to it. It can simply answer legal questions rather than moral ones. There's no longer an issue of "can a man marry a man," but instead, "can a man give what are essentially full powers of attorney in perpetuity to another man?"
When you state it the second way, you also see how one might still argue against marrying the people's favorite slippery-slope arguments, as well. Can you be bonded to three people? Well, maybe, but it seems to me that it would be a huge mess of legal rights. Can you be bonded to a goat? Obviously not - they couldn't sign a contract. Can you be bonded to your mom, dad, or sister? Of course. In many ways you already are under our current system.
This has the added benefit of allowing marriage to mean whatever you think it does... I assure you my definition of what it's all about never had anything to do with gays, and I'm amazed that anyone else's did. I can't see how letting a man marry a man would change anything between me and my wife. I guess if it did, we'd have an awful superficial marriage.
Anyhow, my two cents. Worth approximately that much.
Government shouldn't have any hand in Marriage in the first place. Marriage is an institution, and a religious one.
When our government missed this fact and became involved in the legislation of some parts of marriage - in order to promote a more healthy family unit, perhaps - we took a misguided step.
Some of the rights that come with marriage are self-evidently critical to a well-functioning society. No man (or woman) is an island, and it's critical to be able to form units that are legally bound together as a man and a woman are in marriage. Two people pooling their assets can obviously go further than either one might alone.
However, I believe government should stop where the legal rights do. It should be able to recognize a contract between two people to become legally bound.
Marriage, on the other hand, should be in the realm of the church. Two people who wish to get married would then seek the proper government papers to get their legal rights, and a priest to get their spritual ones.
This way, government has no handin saying what marriage is supposed to mean and who is and isn't entitled to it. It can simply answer legal questions rather than moral ones. There's no longer an issue of "can a man marry a man," but instead, "can a man give what are essentially full powers of attorney in perpetuity to another man?"
When you state it the second way, you also see how one might still argue against marrying the people's favorite slippery-slope arguments, as well. Can you be bonded to three people? Well, maybe, but it seems to me that it would be a huge mess of legal rights. Can you be bonded to a goat? Obviously not - they couldn't sign a contract. Can you be bonded to your mom, dad, or sister? Of course. In many ways you already are under our current system.
This has the added benefit of allowing marriage to mean whatever you think it does... I assure you my definition of what it's all about never had anything to do with gays, and I'm amazed that anyone else's did. I can't see how letting a man marry a man would change anything between me and my wife. I guess if it did, we'd have an awful superficial marriage.
Anyhow, my two cents. Worth approximately that much.