Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there 
>> is a significant demand for one without the other?
> 
> Well, yes. That's why we have religious marriages and secular marriages.
> 
> I'm not sure why a "religion" has anything to do with contractual 
> obligations of the state and its regulated service providers.

My main point is that, even if it is Civil, when you call it "marriage" 
you bring the religious nuts out of the woodwork.

So don't call it marriage.  Call it a Civil union, even, and let 
organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message