Well, obviously: churches mostly have nothing to do with faith, but power.

As Bitt said, "state" marriage is a contract. It should be treated as such, with parties signing a form saying "we agree to support each other, share property acquired from now on, have joint custody of children..." etc. Note that, if we push this to logical consequence, there is no good reason to restrict the contract to two parties.

I think that state should deal only in civil unions, i.e. all "state" marriages should be called the same (I personally don't see why the word cannot be "marriage", but don't see why is it so important, either). Then, the couple (or group) would have the choice to have legal contract, religious (or other) ceremony of their choice, or both (or neither, of course). As a concession to churches, an arrangement could be made that in the case of religious marriage compatible with the state one (and all should be such, as people should be free to stipulate conditions of nuptial agreement as they wish), the church simply notify authorities the their members entered into the contract. OK, the state will wish some standardization, but that's technicality.

Bonzi