It's time to seperate the 'religious' and 'civil' component of marriage.. now wait, here me out...

[Rosco T.]

The issue is the religious reich's fighting gay marriage, they're the ones stopping it from being recognized/performed in many states.

You have to have a 'license' to get 'married' ISSUED BY THE STATE.

The 'license' is a civil contract.

You do NOT have to have a 'religious' ceremony.

The Constitution says clearly that contracts must be recognized by the states, no matter what state it is entered into.

You get a 'license', I don't care what state it is in, you have the CIVIL ceremony (or religious), the contract is signed.

States that do not want to grow up and allow the 'CIVIL CONTRACT' to be entered into in their state, fine and dandy, but THEY MUST RECOGNIZE IT FROM OTHER STATES.

end of issue.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. Amazing in its simplicity, isn't it? What's the problem, then? NO ONE is forcing anyone to perform

a marriage in any church, temple, whatever. it's a CIVIL CONTRACT!

[Rosco T.]

4. Cause the Religious Reich...

.. says IT'S AGAINST GHODS WILL! and go mad if an state wanted to recognize, let alone tries to allow it to happen. That's why the 'civil' needs to be cut loose from 'religions'.

[Ms. Toad]

8. No one does now.

When a religious marriage is given legal recognition it is because the state chooses to permit the religious entity to act on its behalf in creating the legal status of marriage - which already is (and has always in recent memory) been a civil - not religious matter.

Where the analysis falls down is a misunderstanding that the arrangement described is what already exists - and only in the situation where the couple is a same gender couple - does the receiving state refuse to recognize an out of state marriage (and step into its role as the third party in a marriage contract).

[bunnies]

2. Thier churches will always be free to discriminate.

But thats not enough for them. They arent happen unless theyre making someone else miserable.

[Warpy]

3. I've said that for years, that people should be considered married

when they present themselves at City Hall, get the marriage license and sign it in front of a notary. Having a god botherer mumbling over it should do nothing except wash the inherent "sin" of sex away and add ceremony and ritual that is very important to a lot of people.

The legal contract by which you appoint a non related partner into the status of first degree relative, ahead of your birth family, should be like any other.

Getting the whole thing right with god and the family should be separate.

[Glorfindel]

5. You'd think the religious establishment would be INSISTING on separating the two...

After all, if a state can regulate the sacrament of marriage, what's to keep it from regulating the sacraments of baptism, ordination, confirmation, circumcision, etc.?

[Ms. Toad]

6. That is the current scheme.

Religious entities may only create legally recognized marriages because the state allows them to. When they marry people they are acting as agents of the state to solemnize the marriage.

What you don't understand, though, is that marriage is not a two party contract, but a three party contract (and contract is not a perfect anology, but it is close enough).

What happens now with mixed gender couples (and - from my perspective is also constitutionally required to happen with same gender couples) is that when you move from state to state, the receiving state steps in the shoes of the marrying state. Sort of like substituting a party in a contract - but not quite. Instead of carrying out the marrying state's obligations (since those aren't necessarily what the receiving state has decided to give married couples), the receiving state offers what it does all other marriages created within its borders. (In a true contract, the terms of the contract don't change just because of a party substitution.)

That little dance, whether interstate or international, has been worked out through hundreds of cases which established the principle that the constitution requires the new state to become a party to the "contract" for any legally married couple.

All these mini-DOMAs purportedly change all that. They say, Uh-Uhh - you can't make us step into a contract we find against our strongly held public policy (the only legally acceptable reason for refusing to step in). And the fact that some of these mini-DOMAs are constitutional amendments makes it even more tangled. Bottom line, I still think all of those are unconstitutional - and I think we'll get there sooner rather than later.

But your scheme really isn't any different from what exists now. It is just that that the receiving state refuses to become a party to the marriage contract. Forcing it to will require the same kind of litigation which was required to end the refusal to recognize interracial marriages created elsewhere, or to require recognition of marriages by a receiving state of marriages which were created in a state which had different standards for age of marriage, closeness of relationship, and so on.

[justiceischeap]

7. As if, somehow, gays and lesbians aren't deserving of a religious ceremony?

The whole separate but equal argument? Yes, marriage is a CIVIL contract between the signors and the State but custom often dictates a religious ceremony and there are religious LGBT members of the community. Why shouldn't they have the right to a religious ceremony? Personally, I'm an Atheist and wouldn't care if I was married by the church (I'd have my roommate, a Pagan, do it).

[Rosco T.]

9. No one said they don't have a right to a religious ceremony

Civil, religious doesn't matter. It's the underlying CONTRACT that's terrible issue. A civil ceremony has just as much weight as a religious one. The point is that IT SHOUL SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED PERIOD. I know of people that have had both a civil ceremony and then later a church ceremony to 'consecrate' it..

[baldguy]

10. +1000. Long past time.