Having been absent during the entire duration of this thread, I'll repeat essentially what has been said before elsewhere:

At the formation of the US, and adoption and ratification of the original US Constitution, there were several "states" that were founded essentially as theocracies. The seeking for "religious freedom" as commonly perceived now is largely a myth. What was sought was only freedom from one theocracy in order to establish a slightly different one. (The differences were largely a matter of who gets to have political power?)

The constitutions of several existing entities - later states - included a variety of provisions considered intolerable now by most people. In a couple of pre-Constitutional states, for example, "jews and chinese" were prohibited from owning property, the state could tax the people for the construction of churches "of the right religion," school teachers were constitutionally required to be "members of THE church," etc. Restrictions on blacks were sparse since a.) there weren't many of them, or b.) they weren't considered people.

As a consequence of the existing of dictatorial theocracies in some potential states, the delegates of several others were sent back to the second Constitutional Convention with "ratification conditional on the addition of" the IMPORTANT (IMO) part of the First Amendment:

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION.

Because of this provision, the pastors who counselled me prior to my participation in the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in what was then my church emphatically asserted that the state has no power to require that I "get a license" in order to enter into any SACRAMENT of ANY church. I see no reason why that should be different now, although some bigots continue to attempt to place civil restrictions on some "actions and behaviours" commonly associated with the rites of their specific religions.

I was advised that I should get the license as a means of having "legal civil recognition" of the partnership that we intended, and to avoid ambiguity of our "married" status with respect to civil law. The two pastors with whom we consulted, of two nominally separate "religions," both agreed that they could perform the rites and sacraments for our "Sacred Marriage" regardless of whether or not we obtained the civil license for our separate civil marriage.

Any "church" that believes that a license is necessary for any sacrament (not in conflict with civil law) isn't much of a church. Any one who enters into a "Sacred Marriage" without a license, thereby ignoring the rather substantial civil benefits to be had, probably isn't too bright.

For those whose belief dictates it, engaging in a "marriage" not blessed according to the belief of their faith is "sinful," and the MARRIAGE SACRAMENT according to the rites and ceremonies of their faith is needed.

Since the "marriage license" has NO AUTHORITY with respect to one's beliefs, there is no clearly valid reason why any pair of citizens should be prohibited from forming the civil partnership represented by the "marriage license" if they choose to follow the conditions in CIVIL LAW of that "marriage."

A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It DOES NOT REQUIRE the couple to have children, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It does not, in fact, even require that they be "of good moral character" (despite numerous attempts to define such a condition) but only that they are persons capable of entering into and observing the civil requirements of a simple form of formal legal contract.

The license DOES REQUIRE in most places, that they hold property jointly and equally (joint property rules vary), that either can speak for the other (an automatic power of attorney in many cases), and that they each, and both together, are responsible for their actions with respect to property. Although for the most part any debt contracted by one automatically becomes their joint obligation, even this provision of most civil marriage statutes is so loosely enforced that most real property sellers are advised to "get both signatures" on any contract. (Most states have provisions that allow "real property" to be registered in the name of one or the other separately, if done deliberately, although the divorce settlement may obscure or ignore even this separation.)

Some may consider it a "defect" that for purposes of marriage - and divorce - children are considered "property" of the marriage, but there has been little progress in finding another legal (civil) status for them. The abandonment - or abuse - of children arguably places a substantial burden on the rest of the community, and much of "domestic relations" law in the US is devoted to assuring the physical management and disposition of said property, in much the same manner as the requirement that any other property (or debt) abandoned by one is the responsibility of the other(?).

The "act" legitimized by a marriage license is not significantly different than the formation of any other form of legal partnership. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION, or with whether any sacraments, moral imperatives, rites, and/or services are observed. I would much prefer that it remain that way.

Those who think that limiting the participation in this civil act "cheapens" their SACRED MARRIAGE don't have much to be proud of in their own faith, and need to look to what their own faith holds to be the rights and obligations of those observing its sacraments.

There is no reason that this civil status - of two persons acting as one for matters in CIVIL LAW - should be denied because of race, religion, sex or sexual preference, disability, age, or any other reason unrelated to the ability of the two partners to make the agreement willingly and knowingly.

The only way to keep the law OUT OF MY RELIGION is to keep it separate, and to avoid giving it ANY jurisdiction over what I hold Sacred, including keeping it OUT OF any decision about whom I may love or with whom I may associate. The argument that "only a few" are affected is vacuous. ("How many people are homosexual" has no bearing, if at least two are, and I believe I know at least two.)

ANY MARRIAGE licensed by the State is ENTIRELY A MATTER OF CIVIL LAW, whether called a marriage, a civil union, or by some other name. There's nothin' "holy" about it, and quibbling over what it's called just means more chances for dumb legislators to make competing, conflicting, stupid laws.

Most of the arguments in this thread are whether calling something an automobile means it has to be a Buick, opposed by those who want always to be a Mercedes. Licensed marriage - in civil law - does not mean the same thing as the sacrament of marriage in one's religion, if one has any faith worth honoring.

John