From the Dallas Observer blog a commentor offer this:
“I’m one of those libertarian whackjobs who think the government should get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Anything else is special form of legal partnership/civil union. The government should offer a standard legal partnership/civil union contract. Anything that does not fit that contract would have to be drawn up on their own (preferably with a good family law attorney).”
I am not a libertarian whackjob but it sums up my opinion perfectly. Other than that, I am pretty sick of the issue and more importantly how it is used almost exclusively as a political wedge. I’d much rather legislators concern themselves with the economy in light of the 32% loss my retirement account has suffered in the last 5 months.
oh, and, Separation of church and state is an illusion.
Dixie's Road Trip 
That is pretty much me to a T as well. I’m not religious by any means and when Jenni and I got married, the only reason why we had a preacher do it was because he was my college roommate. The only issue that I have with stating that gov’t should only issue civil unions while religious institutions can marry people is that there is no difference in the two fundamentally, so why the argument over the meaning of one word. The word “marriage” simply means the joining of seperate objects (i.e. marrying two pieces of wood together). Instead, allow religious institutions to decide whom they would like to offer marriages “before God” and gov’t simply offer “marriage”…just my $0.02
Hey Erin!
It’s a good point. I am glad to know there are people like you out there with rational, logical and compassionate thoughts. I wish it was a world where your definition of the word was common place but it’s the semantics that effectively cause the uproar.
You made me think about semantics so if I might get up on my soapbox and throw out a few more thoughts…
If one group has so much identity and ownership tied to the word, like marriage in this instance, then it seems they do alot to “keep” others from having it. Because of this ownership if someone else also uses the word it somehow means they have to give up some power. I think this is the inherent argument that if marriage rights are given to all then it will undermine the institution in its current form.
I don’t know if this is an instant where the word should just be left to religion, or to tear it down the meaning until it has no value at all to anyone or continue to try to share ownership of the word in legal and religious arenas both.
I don’t know, it’s never been my fight. I’ve never held much stock in marriage. I am a child of the 70’s and 80’s when divorce rates doubled. When I, and most of my friends, had two homes, multiple parents and crappy models for healthy relationships. Marriage is so derivative to me. Marriage certainly never gave me the sense that it made a relationship any better than any couple who was not married. For me the commitment between two people can not be measured by any external validations.
But now, I have a godson whose moms don’t have to same protections like you, Jenni, and sweet Connor. Not that they need it but it causes me worry for them. The steps they had to take to protect just their parental rights were time consuming, expensive and in no way guaranteed. Then, I think about health care, benefits, retirement and all other protections guaranteed by marriage and it’s hard not to think about what is really being denied. Despite my person belief about marriage, a denial of rights is not equal protection.
[[ahem…stepping down]]
You get it and I am glad you do.