And the next step should be a complete separation

[nadinbrzezinski]

of marriage from the churches, synagogues and other religious institutions, including the FSM.

You want to marry... no matter what your sexual orientation... the one the state will recognize... at city hall. or at home with a JUDGE or other representative of the STATE. What in other places around the world is called a civil marriage, not what passes for one here. And if you want to be married in a church, synagogue, what have you... fine... AFTER the state marries you... and the religious marriage has zero standing before the state. Nor are clergy any longer authorized by the state to marry you.

This also means a complete separation of this civil function from the religious function.

I expect a lot of buts, but before you do, the reason why church members still do it is because county judges did not get often to isolated towns during the frontier years... methinks we have breached that problem, just a thought.

Oh and before screams come, read how this works in OTHER COUNTRIES with a real tough separation of church and state.

Please.

Oh and state rights is code for suppression of civil rights.

[notadmblnd]

1. No one can get married in Michigan unless they get a license from the state.

From there one can go to a judge or clergy member. Without endorsement from the state, no religious ceremony is recognized as a legal marriage. So what you are saying- should be, already is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. But your clergy still has the authority to say those famous words

under the authority of the state of I declare you husband and wife. This is what needs to be removed, period.

That is the final step.

[jwirr]

25. Nadin I hear what you are saying but I think you would get a bigger argument on this than same

sex marriage. It is the blessing within the cerimony that makes people want to get married in the church - but not just that many want the beautiful pics! You might even get an argument from same sex couples.

I for one want this bill passed for the sake of my neice and her partner and I want to go to their wedding.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Two separate issues

You can have your blessing in church and all that jazz... But the civil ceremony should be 100 percent separate.

The civil side is a civil contract with civil and legal obligations. A religious ceremony is separate. This works not in theory, in practice, around the world. It leads to a lot of jokes by the way, but for example south of the border, you get your civil marriage on oh Wendesday, some are big shindigs too...and in church, where you get your religious blessing on Sunday.

If the church refuses to...fine, you still have your civil contract and all right and obligations. I am sure more than one liberal religious leader will still gladly marry then under god. But it takes some of the control over civil rights.

Perhaps I grew up in a country where this is not alien. Hell, we have the beginnings of this, as you have to get a licence first.

[jwirr]

46. I know it works that way in many countries and I would work that way here also IF we could ever

get that passed. I am not suggesting that we stop fighting only that it will not be easy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Agreed it won't be easy.

[fascisthunter]

2. agreed... in Germany you marry in front of the state

and are not obligated to marry in a church at all, but if you choose to, you may.

[cali]

6. uh, guess what? In every state in this country

You "are not obligated to marry in a church at all, but if you choose to, you may."

[SidDithers]

66. +1...

The state will issue the legal marriage license, and then a marriage ceremony will be performed. That ceremony could be a secular one in front of a judge or justice of the peace, or it could be a religious one in a church.

Churches that choose to marry same-sex couples should be free to do so, and churches that choose not to marry same-sex couples should not be forced to.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

Sid

[cali]

81. it is very simple, and the op is rather silly and dogmatic

about what is a non-issue. Not to mention that this is hardly the next step.

[fascisthunter]

89. Yeah, I know... but not what I meant to say:

In Germany:

MANDATORY CIVIL WEDDING. Germany does not recognize common law marriages and requires a mandatory civil wedding ceremony before a registrar of vital statistics (“Standesbeamter”) at the local Office of Vital Statistics (“Standesamt”), located in the Town Hall (“Rathaus”), § 1310 BGB (BurgerlicheS Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code). Both spouses must be present at the mandatory civil wedding ceremony, § 1311 13GB. A religious ceremony by a military chaplain or civilian clergyman is optional. However, the religious ceremony can only be held after the civil ceremony, § 67 PStG (PersoneflStafldsgesetz, Personal Status Act). All marriages performed in Germany according to the German law are recognized in the United States.

[jwirr]

27. I did not get married in a church some 50 years ago. It has always been legal to marry in front of a

justice of the peace. In fact in some states you are considered to be married if you live together for a number of years in what is called a "common law marriage". No cerimony.

[fascisthunter]

87. I should have been more specific:

"MANDATORY CIVIL WEDDING. Germany does not recognize common law marriages and requires a mandatory civil wedding ceremony before a registrar of vital statistics (“Standesbeamter”) at the local Office of Vital Statistics (“Standesamt”), located in the Town Hall (“Rathaus”), § 1310 BGB (BurgerlicheS Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code). Both spouses must be present at the mandatory civil wedding ceremony, § 1311 13GB. A religious ceremony by a military chaplain or civilian clergyman is optional. However, the religious ceremony can only be held after the civil ceremony, § 67 PStG (PersoneflStafldsgesetz, Personal Status Act). All marriages performed in Germany according to the German law are recognized in the United States."

[Dorian Gray]

54. I know of nowhere in the US

that you are obligated to marry in a church.

That doesn't mean I disagree with Nadin's OP. I just want it to be clear that nobody is compelled to marry in a church. Everyone can get married by a judge if they prefer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. If it were a separation of church and state

wouldn't that mean the state NOT telling churches they can no longer exercise traditions carried out thousands of years prior to the founding of the state?

Serious question.

[jp11]

13. Just curious how would the government/state saying you as a church/religious organization can

marry whomever you want but it isn't legally valid until you file the government paperwork 'telling churches they can no longer exercise traditions carried out thousands of years prior to the founding of the state'? Nothing stops people from living as a married couple just exercising the benefits of the government that came after their church.

[annabanana]

60. It is largely semantics.

Everyone has to go to City Hall. If what had always been written on the top of that document was "Contract of Union" rather than "Marriage Certificate" we would be having a different conversation.

The "Marriage" part of the equation would have been understood to be that part of the procedure that would have been carried out at a place of worship (of whatever kind).

We would not have been faced with screaming red-faced harpies hollering that we were "trying to redefine Marriage - the most holy of institutions, the very basis of civilization"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Historically, marriage was under the sole jurisdiction

of the ecclesiastical courts - the church had its own court system and handled all matters relating to marriage; that's because the Catholic church (and, in England after Henry VIII, the Anglican church) considered marriage to be a sacrament. Other denominations and religions also "managed" marriage for similar reasons. This is why people who profess any kind of faith still usually get married by a church or other religious institution. It wasn't until about the 18th century that marriage became a civil matter handled by government courts. And now the churches and the state have a kind of concurrent jurisdiction, but you aren't considered married with respect to issues relating to property, inheritance, etc., unless the state recognizes your marriage. At the same time, some religious institutions don't consider you to be married (at least as far as "God" is concerned) if your wedding took place before a judge with no involvement of clergy.

Once marriage became a civil institution in the U.S. (as well as a religious one) it came to be regulated by the individual states, along with other matters that were once under the control of the church courts, like wills and estates and the support of children. This is because under the Constitution the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that are allowed to hear only cases involving federal law or diverse citizenship (lawsuits between citizens of different states). For this reason marriage is, at this time, a matter for each state to regulate. The federal system didn't get involved in marriage issues at all until Loving v. Virginia, which held laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. The case was decided under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

What needs to happen now to get out from under state laws outlawing same-sex marriage is a similar challenge. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court might figure out some intellectually dishonest way to distinguish Loving and find those laws constitutional.

[derby378]

7. Never gonna happen

I know a little more about Mormon temple ceremonies than the Latter-day Saints would prefer I did, but this much I can tell you without violating their inner sanctum: A Mormon couple can seek out a justice of the peace, sure, but only those marriages that are performed and sealed in a consecrated LDS temple by an authorized LDS elder are guaranteed to transcend the usual bond of "'til death do us part."

This is just one example. FYI, Ginny and I got married by a retired minister in 2000, but his role was a little closer to the J-P role than a traditional clergyman.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. And that can still happen

I know more about Jewish ceremonies and this done in Mexico where the Justice of the Peace marries you before the state on Tuesday and the Rabbi Saturday night or Sunday matters little. To the extremely religious folks, yup, we have them... consecration is also done at the Temple... before elders. go ahead, EWWW.

[cali]

8. that's not even close to the next step

that's waaay off in the distance. there's a shitload to do before worrying about that.

[jp11]

9. Sounds right to me.

I don't get how the idea is that marriage is 100% a religious thing yet need the government to 'protect' it in the sense that it fits a particular religious 'belief' of what a marriage is all the while gaining benefits FROM the government for being married.

If you want legal/government rights/recognition of your marriage there should be paperwork with the government absent any religious institution if not fine you can be 'married' through your religious organization that has no legal authority/recognition in the country.

The only exceptions I can think of are situations like the Amish where I doubt they all file paperwork with the government but seeing as how I doubt they seek out government benefits/protections for being married it might not be an issue.

[MadHound]

10. Why?

All states and counties require a state approved marriage license, in order to make your union legal in the eyes of the state. What should it matter if my priest, priestess, shaman, or Uncle Ray is the one who conducts the ceremonies? What should it matter if the ceremony is conducted at city hall, in a church, in a forest, or sky diving?

So long as everybody has the right to use that marriage license to become legally wed, setting and who is conducting the ceremony are basically window dressing, designed to help the happy couple celebrate in a manner that they see fit.

I got married under the wide open sky, I would have hated being married inside a building.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Your civil ceremony could be conducted under a wide open sky

and why? There are many reasons... that are well beyond what people understand here. It is like when I am told Obama is a socialist... well no, not really.

Removing this completely from religious leaders takes some of their power away.

[MadHound]

15. Well, that's nice and all,

But the fact of the matter is that we live in a religiously oriented society, and it brings people comfort and joy to have a religious figure conduct their ceremony. This isn't granting religious leaders power, it is simply acknowledging reality.

I see no problem in allowing marriage to continue as it always has been, just so long as the official document is available to all people, gay, straight, black, white, whatever. I see know point in inconveniencing people by forcing them to have the official ceremony at city hall. Have the ceremony whenever and wherever you want, involving anybody you wish, sign the proper documentation and VOILA! You're married.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Oh we are also a conservative country

I hear from a few people on the right wing.


Oy

[MadHound]

20. Liberal or conservative, the vast majority of people in this country are indeed religious,

At least to some extent or another. And at special times, weddings, funerals, etc., they take great comfort from their religion. Not just Christianity either, but Wiccan, Islam, whatever.

Yet you want to take this away from them, why? I just don't get where you are coming from.

Why should it matter to you that the the person marrying me is religious or not? If I can marry whoever I want, it should make no difference whatsoever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I guess Mexicans, who is your closest neighbor to practice this

are not religious? This will come as news to them... Indeed it will, in ways you have no idea. And yes Mexico is actually MORE religious than the United States... but they do practice a strict separation of church and state. It might be a surprise to you, we don't.

Priests, Rabies, Imams and left handed widgets stil practice very religious ceremonies, following each and all strictures of their respective faiths. They just don't say the magic words.

I guess you really have no idea how this works.

It is time for people to expand their horizons.

This falls in the category, quite honestly, of the Presiden is a damn socialist, communist, fascist...

Really.

Have a good day.

[MadHound]

28. And priests, rabbis, imams, and left handed widgets still perform religious ceremonies in the US

And say those magic words. As do judges, ship captains, and all manner of other non-religious people, performing irreligious, but still legally valid, ceremonies.

You don't have to have a religious figure perform your wedding ceremony in order to be legally wed. You don't have to be married in a church. It is your choice. Why do you want to limit that sort of freedom of choice?

You have yet to answer that one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Go marry in a church, may pole whatever,

After the state marries you...have it completely separate. Why? A civil marriage is a contract, fraught with civil rights, the churches are using this religious extremism to prevent civil rights.

That is why I suggest you research how nations with a true separation of church and state do this. Free clue, one reason for that are religious wars in their past.

[MadHound]

35. Which is why you are required to sign a marriage license

I signed mine right after the wedding. No religion prevented me from signing it. Granted, I am in a hetrosexual marriage. However if I were in a homosexual relationship, it wouldn't be the church that is preventing me from signing that marriage license, but actually the state. State laws, state regulations. If I were in a gay relationship, my partner and I could go to city hall right now, looking to be married, and guess what, the judge couldn't marry us because the laws of my state, and this country, would prevent me from getting married.

Now then, I grant you, religious institutions in this country wield a lot of influence on whether or not those laws are adapted, or not. But still and all, religious organizations don't write those laws, they don't pass those laws. That is all done by the state.

What we need to change are the laws, not how people choose to celebrate their wedding, or how their wedding is conducted. Then all people, gay or straight, could go out and get married in whatever fashion they choose, and then do like I did, sign that marriage license in the presence of family and friends, making it all nice, legal and official. No need to traipse down to city hall, no need to pay yet another fee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. We have the beginnings of it, but not quite there

You should sign it before, as a separate issue. Why is this so difficult to process? You think we're so damn special we can't learn from others?

At least some states require this signing, close, almost there, to be signed a the county in front of a government official, before the ceremony. Not difficult to move from there to not issuing a licence, but a certificate. See, easy peachy, and then you go to your insert religios building here, and have your religious ceremony, completely separate.

[zappaman]

37. "easy peachy" indeed. n/t

[Union Scribe]

49. ...

I probably wouldn't have noticed that among all the bad arguments, thanks for picking that cherry.

[MadHound]

38. Why does it matter if you sign the document before or after the ceremony?

Oh, yeah, because the vast majority of people in this country don't think that they're married until said ceremony occurs. Nor should it really matter if you sign it afterwards.

Your basic reasoning on this essentially comes down to this, you don't like the way things are done in this county, at least not how they are traditionally done. And you know what, that's fine. If you want to sign the marriage license before you marry your partner, then have the ceremony, you are free to do so, that is your right. But you have no right to dictate to others how they should conduct their nuptials.

The only thing that needs to be changed concerning how we are wedded in this country is that all people should be allowed to marry any person of their choice, that's it. Not how we receive a marriage license, where we have our weddings, none of that, just that we should be free to marry the person of our choice. And that is a matter of changing laws, laws that have been set by the state and federal governments. Changing where you are wedded, when and by whom, changing any or all of that will not allow us to marry the person of our choice. So I suggest that you concentrate more on changing those laws rather than trying to dictate how nuptials are conducted in this country.

Pretty simple, eh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Off by a few miles, even light years

Suffice it to say some things we can learn from other nations. This is one of them. In others they can learn from us.

But hey in case you haven't gotten it yet, I don't buy into the foundational and imperial myth.

As to traditions, believe it or not, they are not set in stone. If they were we'd still have slavery, separate but equal and a few other...traditions. Argument of this is tradition are indeed hollow.

You don't get it, that's ok...but I would prefer an even firmer separation of church and state, instead of weakening that wall.

[MadHound]

42. Separation of church and state?

I think that with our current setup, church and state are actually well separated. You can get married by a person, who either is or isn't a church official, and they perform the nuptial ceremony. Your marriage is legally recognized by the state when that piece of paper, the marriage license, is filed.

You really don't get this, do you. You are letting your irrationality blind you to the legal facts of marriage. I can(hypothetically speaking if I were single) go to any priest or minister in this country, have them perform the full marriage ceremony word for word, and it still wouldn't mean that I am legally married. The only way that occurs is if I sign that piece of paper provided by the state. Contrariwise, my partner and I can sign that piece of paper, that's it, nothing more, no words spoken by priest, judge or Bozo the Clown, and we would be legally and officially married.

But you want to interject, for whatever reason, another separate, unneeded ceremony to be performed at city hall.

Why? You still haven't adequately explained any logical reasoning for that. All you state is that other countries do it, so we should as well, and that somehow by doing this dual ceremony dance it will somehow weaken religion and strengthen the wall between church and state. Explain, please, clearly and concisely, how that would come about, something that you have yet to do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. First tradition, now personal attacks.

Since juries rarely deal with this, good bye...

[zappaman]

48. LOL! n/t

[pecwae]

51. You have insulted

and condescended to MadHound in every reply you've made to him/her in this exchange. There is nothing in the post above yours that a jury would need to be consulted on.

A license from the state is required for marriage. A religious ceremony is a choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. And he has been pure and non insulting, good bye

[cali]

52. oh my word. Nadine, don't you see how insulting you've been to others in this thread?

I think you have a good heart but you are so condescending and insulting to others- even when they disagree very politely. Can't you see how off putting that is? I can only surmise that your insecurity drives you in this regard.

[SidDithers]

70. Classic!...

Sid

[zappaman]

80. Can't wait for the H & M thread

complaining about bullying(which it isn't-it's disagreement) followed by a long GOODBYE thread!

[Union Scribe]

50. You've presented the facts and

argued them quite well. Some people will never admit they're wrong, though.

[zappaman]

29. "I guess you really have no idea how this works. "

Typical insults.
Bookmarking for future reference when you inevitably complain you are "bullied" when people disagree with you.

[cali]

18. you didn't give a reason

and saying that people here wouldn't understand the reasons is not only insulting as hell, it sounds like a cop out.

And as I said, it's not even close to being the next step. You do realize that it's far more important to see marriage equality recognized as a constitutional right, right?

[zappaman]

19. +100 n/t

[Codeine]

53. 'Well beyond what people understand here," -- except you, right?

You have the lock on wisdom.

[zappaman]

84. +100 n/t

[badtoworse]

56. I wanted to get married the same way, but it was pouring that day.

[apocalypsehow]

11. No, the next step should be the Supreme Court upholds & extends *Loving v. Virginia*, and rules that

state laws that deny marriage equality are unconstitutional, and for that reason null and void.

After that, there should be no more "steps," as the problem will have been solved, other than peripheral issues.

[zappaman]

16. Why shouldn't people be able to get married in a church

if they want to?
Who are you to dictate where people get married?

[annabanana]

61. That is still entirely up to the individual church (or whatever) to decide. . . .n/t

[madinmaryland]

21. So you want some people (actually a lot) to get "married" twice??

I don't care who "marries" a couple, I just want any couple to be able to get married.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. It happens around the world, outside our borders, regularly

and nobody gets really hurt... or pained over it.

But yes, that is essentially how this works in more places than you care to imagine.

[Johonny]

26. I don't understand the difference now.

Don't most get married twice now anyways. Most people get married in church with a big ceremony and whatever, that means very little with the state. Then they sign the marriage license and it get's filed by the state. Some people skip the religious crap and just file the paper work.

Honestly I don't see why you need to scrap the religious part since anyone that can get married already can marry without church approval. No church will ever be forced by any state law from preforming marriages they don't approve of. I think the whole get religion out of marriage game simply plays into the hands of the fear mongers who lie that these "gay" marriage laws violate church-state bounds. If you want to get married now without religion, you can.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Dd not say scrap the religious part

Just remove the civil authority from your religious leader.

[zappaman]

32. You should re-read your OP then.

Although I wouldn't be shocked if even YOU didn't understand half the things you post!

[annabanana]

62. (everybody still goes to City Hall too). . .n/t

[sufrommich]

23. Meh, if religious people want to get married in their

churches that's fine with me. Why should I care about their choice of venue?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Exactly, but the civil ceremony shoud be completely separate.

[annabanana]

63. The Civil - thing - does not have to be a "ceremony"..

People just go and get the "marriage certificate" which is actually more of a "Contract of Union" anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. It is a licence, not a cert... at least where I live

But yes, it can be as simple as just signing a contract. That is what legally it is.

[Skip Intro]

40. Wait, didn't Obama just come out for states' rights on this issue? nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

59. Yes he did, something that seems to be missed in the celebration.

It was his out, which means he is done with this issue.

[annabanana]

64. So peoples marriages wouldn't be legal if they went on

vacation across state lines? If there was an accident they couldn't care for each other.. (we can't do that procedure until we contact your spouses MOM)?

[DearAbby]

41. Better yet, once you get a license

The deed is done. No need for judges, or state officials to say words over you. Get a license, yer dun.

[MadHound]

43. That is already the case

The OP doesn't seem to realize that.

[dionysus]

44. lousy idea. you won't get the majority of people to support it. not even close.

[badtoworse]

55. Please show us where the federal government was given the power to implement this.

The constitution is silent about marriage. The power you are describing is reserved for the states under the 10th Amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. You could and I will make the argument that this is part of the 13 and 14

since this is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. State's RIghts is code for separate but equal as well. I will remind you that civil rights legislation also keep going back those two amendments,

That said, if STATES want to be on the right side of history, stop making civil rights something to vote on. and implement a strict separation of church \ state at that level and make the civil wedding completely separate from any religious ceremony. Take away this from your religious leaders. You want to marry in a church after you are married civilly by the county clerk, by all means. The legal and civil responsibilities do not come from the church, but the state and this has to be made crystal clear.

[badtoworse]

73. This is not a civil rights issue

By your own OP, this is about who is authorized to legally marry people. That is up to each state to decide and the federal government has no say in the matter. If you think otherwise, then explain where that power is given to the federal government.

Anyone who wants to can go down to the county clerk's office and get married in a civil ceremony if that is what they want. No one is being denied due process or equal treatment under the law. What difference does it make that some couples may choose to be married in a church or synagogue?

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Yes it is...

Among other things. hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights are matters of civil rights

[badtoworse]

75. True, but who marries you doesn't make any difference.

The state either recognizes your marriage or it doesn't. It doesn't matter who performed the ceremony as long as they were authorized by the state to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. It does, when the churches start playing the games they do

Why removing the ability from preachers, rabies and others to do that is important. It is also a further separation between church and state.

That does not mean you cannot marry under your church... you can, by all means, but the function is separate.

Nations around the world got this after a lot of blood was spilled... no serious... and it works well.

This is one of those lessons we could and should learn from other places around the world. We really do not have as stringent a separation as we should.

And it only means you get your marriage certificate on oh Thursday and marry in the church on Sunday, if you so chose. If you divorce, the civil divorce is quite separate as well from the religious one... (which thankfully that is quite obvious to most divorcees)

[badtoworse]

77. You should start working on a constitutional amendment...

...because that's what it will take. Personally, I think we have more important problems to deal with,

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Civil rights is a pressing issue if you happen to be a minority

or gay.

As to a constitutional amendment, no not really.

But you are right, we have more pressing issues, we always have more pressing issues, that is of course until we don't

[zappaman]

82. This thread is full of fail.

Starting with the OP, but thank you for the laughs!

[HappyMe]

57. No, the next step

is to have marriage equality in every state.

Once everyone can go get a marriage license, who the hell cares where they want to marry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Mark my words, and why this has to be crystal clear

the churches will make this an issue, the rw churches, temples, you mention it.

So make it legal in all fifty states, at the court house, city hall, what have you... and civil rights is NOT a states rights issue either.

[SidDithers]

71. +1...

a same-sex marriage conducted in Maryland should be recognized as legal in all 50 states.

(or 51 states, depending on who you ask)

Sid

[ecstatic]

58. Currently, people can get married in courtrooms

or in church. Choice is good. Not sure why you'd want to go down this road now when there are so many other pressing issues. We need to hold on to our numbers as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Insofa as LGBT rights that is the next step

in my mind.

It will be crystal clear in the next 48 yours as the usual suspects come from the woodwork, in effect they already are.

[cali]

79. please explain clearly for all of us who you deem too stupid to understand

just why this is so important. Orwell believed that complex issues and ideas could always be explained in simple clear language.

You've repeatedly insulted almost everyone in this thread. You really should explain why this is so vital.

[Zorra]

83. "This also means a complete separation of this civil function from the religious function."

Good idea.

State and church should be completely separate in all areas.

[Bake]

85. I don't think that's necessary.

Your proposition would needlessly eliminate the option of a church-blessed marriage for EVERYBODY, including LGBTs who might choose to be married in a church (and yes, there are progressive churches that welcome LGBTs and would be overjoyed to take part and share that experience with the couple).

But retain the OPTION which exists now for a civil ceremony before a J.O.P. for those who don't care about a church.

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bake

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Once again, you can have your religious ceremony

After you marry before the state. Read how this works in countries around the world. Nobody is preventing anybody from walking down the aisle. Alas the minister, priest, what have you, is performing a religious function with zero secular authority.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. I absolutely agree that this is the best solution to the whole problem.

Get the religious concept out of the state marriage. I'd go so far as to call every civil marriage a civil union, period. That would be all the state offers if I was able to make it so.