>Bill, you are assuming that marriage is solely a religious
>institution. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking
>about the civil act performed by the government. Two different
>animals, entirely.
I see. Two different things but only one name for both. That's the problem then, bound to cause misunderstanding.
>Technically, religion should have no role in this argument at all.
>But because so many people have merged their religious act in with
>the civil act and lost the boundaries, it is almost impossible to
>separate the two in debate, which is most unfortunate.
This merging of marriage as religious ritual and marriage as legal contract would seem to contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of the separation of church and state. Perhaps that's something that the religious people, liberals and even leftists can agree on? The only people who won't agree are the authoritarian religious extremists, who want to impose their religious beliefs on others.
So this is a potential "wedge" issue, on which we can split the religious extremists from the majority of religious people, who support freedom of religion.
>Civil marriage actions are acts of the state. Even "godless"
>countries like the former Soviet Union had a form of civil marriage.
>
>
>If we could ever get this through to people, there would hardly be a
>debate.
What we need to do then is give the religious people back their language, reserve "marriage" as a purely religious matter with no legal sanction or state-endowed privilege. The priests and witch-doctors can make up their own rules for marriage, without any interference. But assign a different name to the legal license (or abolish it entirely).
Personally I've never conceded that I need a license to enter into a personal relationship with another person, from either the state or any of the various religious persuasions. But that's only my opinion, I have not objection to other people acting according to their own conscience and beliefs.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas