civil marriage, between any two consenting adults, as something the state handles, and religious marriage, between whoever that particular religion thinks ought to be allowed to get married, as something that religions handle.

Isn't this how it is handled in Europe? Or at least England? A civil ceremony and then the church one?

Right now, if a minister performs a marriage ceremony between two kids, or between a kid and an adult, he can be charged with performing a marriage without a license, right? So, if we made state marriage and religious marriage totally separate, could he still be charged with that?

My thinking is that the religious marriage would be symbolic and it's the state marriage that affords legal rights. In this case a marriage in a church outside of what is a state accepted union would be simply symbolic with no legal standing, so I'm not sure there would be any charge to mount. As things currently stand the minister is acting as an agent of the state when signing the marriage certificate.

The trouble with the domestic partnership thing, over here at least, is that it's asymmetrical. Straight people get to do something called 'marriage' which confers a lot of rights, immediately. They get the choice of doing this either in a religious establishment or a civil one. We get to do something called 'civil partnerships', we're not allowed to do those in a church or similar, and we have fewer rights than (straight) married people (for example, many of our rights don't kick in until six months after we sign the civil register). Meanwhile, straight people who want to register a partership but don't believe in marriage are not allowed to have civil partnerships. It's all a piecemeal mess arranged in such a way that the established church* didn't have to deal with gay weddings, as far as I can see.

What I'd really like to see is full equality - both straight and gay people getting to choose between either civil partnership-style contracts that confer legal rights, or marriages that they can do in churches. I'm a Christian. I'd at least like the choice of getting married in the church that I attend. The best we're going to have to settle for is a blessing there. Equally, I know lots of non-religious people who would like a fully civil union, with no religious overtones or associations. They should have that right too.

Shir, the reason I want a wedding - I think, and eventually, after we sort out the legal rights thing first - is mainly because I want my friends and family to be able to recognise my relationship with me. It's sort of a 'look, I plan to stay with this lass forever, so be nice to her' thing. With a party.

Oh, and we're going to be paying for it ourselves. When there are two 'brides', and one has a family who really doesn't approve, and you're in your thirties, you can't really be arsed with the "Dad, buy me a big wedding" thing.

*Don't get me started on that one...

Straight people get to do something called 'marriage' which confers a lot of rights, immediately. They get the choice of doing this either in a religious establishment or a civil one. We get to do something called 'civil partnerships', we're not allowed to do those in a church or similar, and we have fewer rights than (straight) married people (for example, many of our rights don't kick in until six months after we sign the civil register).

There's also the issue that, for straights, there is near-universal understanding and acceptance of what those rights are. You don't have to explain or argue your case while you're a)standing outside the ER, b)signing up for cell phone service, or c)dealing with 90,000 other things that come up from time to time. Whether the impact is an annoyance or a tragedy, it's still something straight people generally won't have to think twice about. A domestic partnership, even if you could ensure that the actual rights were identical, won't solve for that.

As things currently stand the minister is acting as an agent of the state when signing the marriage certificate.

Good point.

The thng that finally convinced me that legal partnerships are not enough was this. If it's called marriage, then every previous law or decision about marriage can be imported over with a minimum of fuss. At least the presumption could be that marriage law applies. but with civil unions, you will have to argue every single new issue and there are a million. Legally, calling it marriage is much cleaner.

Also, I lived in Brazil. They have two ceremonies, one civil and one religious.

oops, wrong thread.

As things currently stand the minister is acting as an agent of the state when signing the marriage certificate.

Of course, you can get that ability (depending on the state) by signing up for it with no religious specification at all. Or as a ship's captain!

Of course, you can get that ability (depending on the state) by signing up for it with no religious specification at all. Or as a ship's captain!

Certainly. I actually have that ability, from having been ordained of all things. My point is that when this individual is acting as both an agent of the church and an agent of the church there is a conflict of interest. The person signing the marriage certificate for a state sponsored marriage should be acting as an agent of the state without influence from other affiliations.

To me this is similar as the issue with Pharmacists refusing to fill day after pill prescriptions due to religious beliefs. If you are a state licensed pharmacist then you adhere to the state requirements first. If you are acting as an agent of the state signing a marriage certificate then you are acting as an agent of the church first.

To my I-like-preferential-voting head, that sounds kind of... awesome. And it would totally bring new meaning to the phrase "You just gained some points with me!"

OMG, this both cracks me up, and makes me cringe at the the thought of having to constantly reconsider being all "top 8" myspace style revising my "who ranks in my 'familypoints' list". Ack!

But in general I am pretty live and let live--if you want to be "married" and it doesn't harm anyone else and y'all can consent, good onya. I'm skeptical of siblings, cause that seems pretty fucked up, but hey, whatev'. I'd be pretty upset if they were having kids though. Likewise, polygamy, though I do start wondering when you've got large numbers, about the setup when it comes to our welfare system and how you're supposed to SUPPORT a family like that...

And the current problem with domestic partnership stuff in addition to the previously mentioned things, is that even when you get something like, say, Washington State just passed, which is an 'all but marriage' bill, there are plenty of FEDERAL things that can only be done marriage-wise. Like tax shit. Or stuff that is great while you're in your own state or wherever, but god forbid you leave your state/city/county/wherever.