Well, for starters there's no fundamental right to marriage. And given that the state gets next to nothing from gay marriage, it's not in their fiscal interest to allow it.

But, regardless that, the purpose of any constitution, as understood in the American experience, is to limit government, not the people. Saying "the government can't recognize gay marriage" is still coding a limitation on individuals into the constitution, and it's wrong.

"Marriage" is a Church sacrament, and I don't think gummint should regulate sacraments. As practiced, it's an LLC contract in which a man and a woman click the "I agree" on a TOS without knowing the penalties for early termination nor the performance requirements for each party.

I really think we need a "Couples Compact" that is the only government sanctioned way for two people to be bound by what we now call marriage. Then the two people can go their their own religious institution for their sacrament.

> embedding wording "that would
> eliminate the fundamental right
> to same-sex marriage"

What "fundamental right to same-sex marriage"?

I advocate a kind of Uniform Commercial Code for marriage. Make marriage a civil contract. Contracts are negotiated by the parties not mandated by the government.

Contracts can specify jurisdiction. Religious parties can specify that disputes be adjudicated under church courts or arbitration. Churches could specify the contracts under which they will marry people.

Non-religious people can specify secular courts.

Most importantly, judges would have to enforce the contract, not the mandated interests of the state as they do now.

Under a marriage contract system, everyone gets what they want. Gays get marriage. Religious people get enforceable provisions.

Everyone wins when people are free to contract as they see fit, rather than the state coercing people into a poorly defined, one-size-fits-all family court system.

I'm so sick of the presumption that marriage is a religious institution. Bullshit. I was stupid enough to marry once upon a time and it had nothing to do with religion. To act like it doesn't have a social standing in our society is bullshit. And now the religionists not only want to bar gays from this social status, they want to ban all non-religious people. While I learn from my mistakes and have no desire to ever marry again, it really pisses me off to have religious people try to usurp the whole social status of marriage.

Jeff, I'd also add that your suggested kind of contract should have no legal standing in a country with freedom of religion. That binds both parties entering the religious wedding to separate only under the auspices of said church with no recorse should either or both of them lose faith to dissolve the wedding through the secular court. That could be oppression of either or both parties.

And, please, same sex marriages have no effect on religion. Churches that disprove are not forced to endorse them. They are no threat to same sex marriages because, hello, straight couples are not affected. Unless you have some bizzarre notion that hetro is suddenly gonna go homo if it's legalized.

It's time to recognize what has always existed, always will exist because it is just some people's nature, and stop treating said people -- who are hurting no one -- to second class citizenship. If they want to be stupid enough to marry, they should have the same right to be fools in love that straight people do. It's only their tastes that are different.

Gender is more than "taste".

Jeff, I'd also add that your suggested kind of contract should have no legal standing in a country with freedom of religion. That binds both parties entering the religious wedding to separate only under the auspices of said church with no recorse should either or both of them lose faith to dissolve the wedding through the secular court. That could be oppression of either or both parties (T's Grammy).

On the contrary, religious freedom entails the right to adhere to religious strictures just as it also entails the right to ignore those strictures. Religious freedom is means people are free in their religious choices.

Today, commercial contracts can specify jurisdiction. Why not marriage contracts? The concern you have, that one or both parties might leave the church has a direct analog in commercial contract --- breach of covenant. Each contract can specify what happens when one or both parties leaves the church. So, when you write that there would be "no recourse," you are plainly incorrect. The parties would decide what happens in breach of covenant. The church is free to marry or not to marry on the terms presented by the two parties.

Each party would still have recourse to secular courts, who can review the contract to ensure it specifies jurisdiction. If the parties agreed to it, then the secular court will order arbitration under the terms specified, perhaps under a church court, or other terms agreed upon by the parties.

We already handle commercial contracts this way. We handle commercial partnerships this way. I think your concerns are spurious.

Gender is more than "taste" (crid)

Gender or sex?

Don't try to be clever.

"Religious parties can specify that disputes be adjudicated under church courts or arbitration."

You know, I think I recall some cases where Ketubahs (the original PreNup!) were civilly enforced amongst orthodox Jews. I'd have to go back to my law books to check this out, but Jeff's contract is not far off from where I think we're already headed.

Marriage was created by religion. Get over it.
A marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Get over it.
Society is simply not going to allow a small segment of people to suddenly say, "From now on we are calling cats, fleebots or whatever." And that is what is happening here. We're suddenly being told that thousands of years of tradition is going out the window and the definition of marriage is to be changed whether we like it or not.
I don't care if gays have civil unions, all the legal rights, inheritance or whatever. Can't call it a marriage. This is all about shoving their lifestyle down our throats. This is all about being accepted as normal. I don't "have" to like gays, you can't make a law and you can't go door to door and make us like gays. And I think that is the real issue, the desire to be liked and accepted. Get over it.
I usually agree with you Amy, but on this topic we will never sync.

Marriage was created by religion. Get over it.
A marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Get over it.
Society is simply not going to allow a small segment of people to suddenly say, "From now on we are calling cats, fleebots or whatever." And that is what is happening here. We're suddenly being told that thousands of years of tradition is going out the window and the definition of marriage is to be changed whether we like it or not.
I don't care if gays have civil unions, all the legal rights, inheritance or whatever. Can't call it a marriage. This is all about shoving their lifestyle down our throats. This is all about being accepted as normal. I don't "have" to like gays, you can't make a law and you can't go door to door and make us like gays. And I think that is the real issue, the desire to be liked and accepted. Get over it.
I usually agree with you Amy, but on this topic we will never sync.

RA, so I wasn't married for 4 years then because we didn't get married by a church? Funny the divorce court seemed to think we were. So did the both of us. So did everyone even his family who were not thrilled that he married someone who was at that time agnostic. I also think the justice of the peace who married us might beg to differ with you. Gee, guess we're all delusional but you.

Jeff, what you're proposing sounds creepily like sharia law -- and you missed my point entirely. Someone could be religious at the time of their marriage and agree to oppressive terms then come to believe differently. Why should they -- man or woman -- then be held to them? We are talking about something a tad more emotional than a business contract here. And something you don't put behind you at the end of the working day but have to literally sleep and cohabitate intimately with. To force anyone wanting out to abide with a religious court that they agreed to do when they were brainwashed/mistaken/believed differently is oppressive and not only a violation of human rights but flies in the fucking face of separation of church and state.

As it now stands, a couple wanting to be married in a church can and said church can agree to marry them by its terms but either party has recourse to go outside the church if their beliefs change and they have legal standing to dissolve the marriage. And, yes, here, like it or not, women are more open to being victims since so many religions treat them as their husbands property or at least give husband a superior status over wife. You really think a woman who marries in a mosque and signs a contract to agree to be a Muslim wife should have no recourse to go to a civil court to dissolve the marriage if her husband beats her? If so, you're an asshole.

First I want to apologize for posting twice, not sure how that happened.
It amazes me how people completely miss the point of the written word. In comment sections like these I frequently see responders totally miss the point of a post and go off on a tangent in which they feel assured of their viewpoint. Where in the sentence "Marriage was created by religion." do you find the statement that only marriage in a church is valid? How odd. I'll try this again. Say you have a child, a boy. I come into your house and day, "You can't call him a boy anymore. He's a wingnut." If you call him anything else, you are being insensitive to the wingnut lobby. It's the same thing with the marriage issue. A small population wishes to redefine the word marriage to mean just about anything but a union of a man and a woman. So T's Grammy why don't you argue this point instead of some tangent that I didn't even mention in my previous post.