Much of the discussion here mirrors what I see as the common fallacy of those who want to change the law(s) to prohibit gay marriage. The fallacy is that "marriage" means only one thing, and always means the same thing in all contexts.

Many years ago, when I was "counseled" on my pending marriage, my minister explained that:

1. The "marriage" LICENSE is something you should get, to allow the two of you to buy and sell property together, mess up each other's life insurance, and all those other "business" things that the government regulates. You need to get one; but if you want to know about what it does to you, or for you, you need to talk to a lawyer or an accountant.

2. The marriage SACRAMENTS belong to the church, and the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in our church, which you agree to observe, is something the government doesn't control. They can't send you to jail if you violate a sacrament, but OUR CHURCH takes the SACRAMENT of marriage very seriously.

In other words, there's no reason to define a "Civil Marriage License" differently than a "License for Civil Union," because the Marriage License is ONLY a license for "Civil Union" until/unless you participate in the sacrament(s) of your own religion.

Historically, marriage was a "church thing." If you wanted to be "married" you talked to the priest or other appropriate "minister," followed the rules of the church, and the "marriage" was recorded in church records. "Civil Marriage" is a relatively recent invention in many places, and you get a "license to be married" in order to reveal to the rest of the people that you follow "married rules" on the acquiring, owning, and disposing of property.

In simplest form, the CIVIL MARRIAGE is an agreement to grant each other permanent and complete "power of attorney" in matters of secular law, so that property acquired by one is owned jointly by both, and any legal obligation assumed by one is owed by both. Either may make decisions for the other, in any matter affecting life, death or property. Of course, as in anything "legal" the simple becomes extremely complex in practice; but ALL MARRIAGE LICENSES are ONLY a license to form a CIVIL UNION. The "law" does not (at least should not) impose any requirement to observe or not observe religious sacraments, to have or not have sex, to produce or not to produce children. The law is intended to regulate property, so that the rest of the world knows how to deal with the "couple acting as one."

To enact a law prohibiting any persons "of a particular kind" from engaging in one kind of civil contract is exactly like the same prohibition for any other kind of contract. While I'm sure that many now agitating for a prohibition against "marriage" of "gays" would find it satisfying, I don't believe that prohibiting "gays" from being a principal in any "Class X Corporation" or "Regulation Y Partnership" would stand as not discriminatory, and the action licensed by the (civil) marriage license is, legally, no different than any other form of civil association.

Any person who has legal standing to make a contract (i.e. who is a person) and who meets the statutory requirements for a given kind of contract (e.g. not a felon, drunk, judged insane, etc.) should be able to make any kind of contract recognized by secular law. In all jurisdictions I know, any (heterosexual) couple can appear before a designated public official, and license a CIVIL MARRIAGE, have that marriage affirmed before an appropriate, usually designated, CIVIL WITNESS and be "legally" married. The church is not involved. (The limitation that only a "heterosexual couple" may form a civil marriage seems irrational, but so is a lot of other state law; and similarly "irrational" restrictions are fairly common.)

A church that choses to do so may restrict who is permitted to receive the ministering of any of their own sacraments and/or rituals, including the sacrament of a "church" marriage. A church may refuse to recognize as "married," for purposes of their own, persons married under civil law until their own sacrmental rituals are performed and the appropriate vows exchanged. Historically, many churches have demanded a "ritual marriage" before accepting a "civil marriage." Some churches, similarly, refuse to recognize a civil dissolution of a marriage under nearly any circumstance. That's something entirely separate, and the law shouldn't care.

A church that demands the intervention of civil law to enforce their sacraments is a failed church, and invites civil intervention in ALL their sacraments. (Isn't "confession" a self-incrimination prohibited by the US Constitution, and isn't therefore the refusal to administer "holy communion" to one who hasn't been to "confession" an unacceptable "discrimination" and shouldn't the "minister" who dispenses ingestibles be subject to state regulation of sanitation and product purity, and be licensed? How many "license fees" can we collect here? How much meddling is invited?)

A person who insists that the "government" must enforce his/her "articles of faith" has very little true faith. For most of the faiths with which I'm familiar, insisting that "all marriages are sacred" implies little knowledge of what one's own faith requires in order that a marriage be "blessed," and/or an appalling lack of comprehension of what's going on in the "real world."

For those who just "don't like ***," I can be more sympathetic. The world is full of people who are stupid and irrational, and who do things I find annoying, foolish, dangerous, and otherwise objectionable; but they are people who have legal standing in my community, and I will grant to them, and defend for them, their right to be stupid and irrational – even to disagree with me, as long as they don't try to force me be like them by advocating laws that prevent me from being stupid and irrational and perhaps even annoying according to my own preferences. (I find over-amped music quite annoying, but enjoy playing my mandolin badly; although I've been told "there ought to be a law…")

Inherent in the agitation for new laws is the foolish belief that passing a law will make something "not happen." The only thing a law can do is define "what it costs to do it." Attempting to "pass a law" to prevent a common behavior that does not substantially threaten the community is for the small-minded. I see no substantial damage to society from permitting people to form, and to have legally (secularly) acknowledged, their own personal associations, even though they may apply different values than mine in their choice of partners. I see great damage to my community in the imposing of "sacredness" in any matter of secular/civil law.

John