So you're saying that you don't care about marriage itself per se. All you want is to have the same civil/community benefits that a married couple would have.

hmm, let me clarify that. the most important part of marriage is the commitment, and the relationship between the two people. i'm perfectly happy forming the commitment portion of my marriage completely in private. i don't need a public service to recognize that.

the other benefits of marriage, the civil/community benefits you mention, i can't replicate fully on my own. that's where i want parity.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

i don't buy into this. marriage may have started as a religious institution (in our western society, as someone pointed out), but it really has been overshadowed as a civil institution. you can go to a justice and be legally married. the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

now, please don't assume that i represent or speak for the entire gay-couple community. there are those for whom the religious aspects to marriage are important, or who have other ideas about what's important to them. i'm only speaking for myself, and the impact this has on my particular situation.

--dan.