Quote:
I think that the state should be concerned only with civil union or equivalent aspects of marriage, that is, support, inheritance, taxes etc; religious aspects of marriage (if there are those in a particular case) should be exclusively between those married and their church/religious community/whatever - their God(s), after all; the state has no business regulating those
I agree (and have said so numerous times), though it's not going to happen. The concept of marriage is too entrenched in our legal system to jettison it so easily. I think they should ALL be civil unions, but that's a pipe dream at best.

Because of this, despite my anti gay marriage stance I'm not please by all of the civil union bans. I wish these states would have stuck to only deciding the matter of marriage. Civil unions are not a perfect solution, but it's better than ignoring gay couples altogether.

It'll be interesting to see where this all ends up being in a few years. I've pretty much accepted that legal gay marriage is going to happen, so the fact that states are now voting to ban civil unions is quite a shock. It seems to me we're going to have states with polarizing stances on gay marriage, and it'll be interesting to see what the fallout of this is going to be.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.