Marriage is a religious sacrament. No government, federal or local, should be able to sanction a marriage or any other religious rite. This is a separation of church and state issue. Civil Unions, a legal contract, is what the government can legally offer. This is undeniably clear. We should move for a constitutional amendment clearly disallowing the government sponsorship of the religious sacrament of "marriage." Couples wanting to be "married" should only be able to get this designation from a religious institution, not the government. Marriage should not have any legal application. In the secular ( governmental ) world, only legal contracts between two people should dictate. These contracts, as all legal contracts need to be, should be gender and race blind.

Must they be restricted to two parties only?

"Marriage is a religious sacrament."

>>While it's true that religious traditions have created rituals and sacraments to celebrate life events, the fact that religious sacrements of marriage exist no more means that religion 'owns' marriage than the fact that religious sacraments involving death (such as last rights) means they own death and dying. Civil marriage--the only type of marriage that's relevant to legal recognition of same sex marraiges--is an entirely different (and entirely constitutional) entity.

You're simply becoming confused because both are identified by the common term 'marriage'.

If all same sex couples wanted was religious recognition as partners in sacramental marriage, there are traditions do recognize such marriages. If you object to same sex couples being recognized as partners in religious marriage, youu're wasting your time opposing civil recognition. Speak to religious institutions, and don't belong to a one that recognizes same sex religious marriage.

" No government, federal or local, should be able to sanction a marriage or any other religious rite."

>>The US government doesn't sanction sacramental marriage or any other religious rite:: it only recognizes civil institutions (such as civil marriage) and it's only vested individuals with civil rights, benefits, protections and obligations--not religious ones. Investiture of secualr rights upon marraige is dependent only on recognition as partners in a civil marraige: ii you were recognized by your church as part of a sacred marriage but wer not also recognized by the state as partners in a civil marriage (by applying for and receiving a valid state marriage license) you aren't vested with these secualr rights..

" This is a separation of church and state issue."

>>And civil recognition of same sex marriages does not violate that separation. No one is telling religious institutions they must offer their sacraments of marriage to same sex couples, , anymore than they've ever been told they must offer them to inter-raith or inter-racial couples, or couples where one or more partner has been divorced.

"Civil Unions, a legal contract, is what the government can legally offer."

>>That's all they do offer: it's called a civil marriage. If you think that the common name is confusing, by all means lobby your preferred religion to change the name of the sacrament they offer.

"This is undeniably clear. We should move for a constitutional amendment clearly disallowing the government sponsorship of the religious sacrament of "marriage.""

>>The government does not not and never has sponsored the religious sacrament of marriage—all it does is recognize civil marriages and vest those recognized with entirely secular legal rights and benefits. Why do you believe we need an amendment to disallow the government from doing something it does not and never has done?

"Couples wanting to be "married" should only be able to get this designation from a religious institution, not the government."

>>That's the case now-in order to be married in the eyes of a religious tradition they have to obtain that designation from a religious authority. If that's not what they're seeking—if they instead want recognition as partners in civil matrimony—they have to get that designation from civil (not religious) authorities.

"Marriage should not have any legal application."

>>Why not? The major purpose of marriage is to address non-religious issues, many of which are inherently questions of law: clarifying lines of inheritance, ownership of joint properties, defining guardianship for mdependent children, establishing enxt of kin and power of attorney re; medical care for an incapacitated partner, etc.

" In the secular ( governmental ) world, only legal contracts between two people should dictate. These contracts, as all legal contracts need to be, should be gender and race blind."

>>If you believe this then you must also be in favor of recognition of same sex civil marriage, which is simply the recognition of a contractual legal status: partnership in a civil marriage.

So if marriages are not supportable by the state - then you have no legal basis for marriage?

Of course not.

The point is that "marriage" is both a religious sacrament as well as a legal contract. And there are thousands of laws that are based on the legal contract. This discussion is purely about the legal contract version of marriage.

The PLAIN Language of the 14th amendment says that all citizens are entitled to the equal protection of laws.If a state wants to call it marriage, civil union or whatever adults should be ENTITLED to do it.

I'm getting married next year, by a Justice of the Peace, and there will be no mention of any religion whatsoever. If you only get married in a place of worship, without the state sanctioned marriage license, you will not be legally married.