[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I'm not certain that it was originally just a religious sacrament. Remember that marriage was usually a business transaction. "Original" marriage bares little resemblence to marriage today (except perhaps arranged marriages in Afghanistan?)
(2) Religion has little to do with a lot of people's marriages. This is why Justice of the Peace and Sea Captains can marry people. It is a legal procedure. If you want to have a religious ceremony along with it, that's up to you. The important part as far as the govt. is concerned is the signing of the license with appropriate witnesses.
(4) No religion is forced to marry someone they don't choose to. So their religion is not threatened.

[ QUOTE ]
Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.


[/ QUOTE ]

They have these legal contracts - its called legal marriage (which is completely different then a religious marriage... which, has no legal binding.)

[ QUOTE ]
Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is backwards. We need to figure out how to keep the religious components from contaminating the legal components.