Marriage is a legal contract. If you don't agree with that, then try getting a divorce purely through your church.

All existing marriages (i.e. the contract portion) should be converted to 'unions' as they regard benefits. No further action needed, no need to fight with the talking snake folks about who owns the word 'marriage'.

All subsequent 'marriages' would consist of 2 parts.

Civil 'union' ceremony (bestowing the equal benefits to all), followed by (if desired) the social or religious ceremony of your choice. No governmental restrictions on who can perform the ceremony.

...I'm beginning to think that maybe marriage is on its way out. More and more couples (the ones I know, anyways) are choosing to simply live together and even raise children without that "just a piece of paper."

It seems to me that marriage is mostly about property, anyways - e.g. her looks, his money.

...in terms of your rights to mutual inheritence, hospital visits, custody, powers of attorney, etc. Without it you're just roommates as far as the law is concerned. As for clergy if I were in that position, I would probably let the couple decide if they wanted me to sign the license or not. I personally could go either way, but I don't want to deny couples the traditional method. I also think this overlap of church and state functions doesn't ultimately harm anyone, and it's more convenient to seek out a cleric or a judge, without needing both. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and allowing clergy to sign licenses neither establishes religion nor prohibits free exercise, provided that there is a judicial option for those who seek it.

Marrriage ain't "on its way out" any time soon, unless and until there are massive changes in the law, so this issue is not going away.

I have often argued, including in posts to Salon, that clergy members should not be allowed to be agents of the state to sign marriage licenses unless they do it on a non-discriminatory basis. That means that rabbi's who don't want to marry Catholics, priests who don't want to marry divorcees, etc., shouldn't have the authority to marry anyone in the eyes of the law, just the right to preside over whatever incantation or ritual their religion prescribes.

Good for these clergy who have come to somewhat the same conclusion.

Under both civil and religious law, the couple performs the wedding ceremony. They marry eachother. The priest or minister is just there to prompt them on their lines and give the whole thing his blessing. If you exchange your own vows without the minister there, it's just as legal (provided of course, you have a marriage license).

Remember the article yesterday about false history? The tradition of the big church wedding with a white dress, color-coordinated flowers and candies, hot and cold running bride's maids in dorky dresses and ushers with roses in their lapels has roots about as deep as Burnham Wood. Marriages used to be low keyed affairs; in America, usually held in the bride's parents' house rather than in church, and the bride's dress was simply her Sunday-best, whatever color it happened to be, rather than an overpriced white poofball. Let's put homophobic clergy and the wedding-industrial complex BOTH out of business, and go back to the simple reception at the bride's house while we're at it.

My denomination - the Unitarian Universalists - have been at the forefront of the refusal to sign campaign, and the larger campaign to ensure equality and the right to marry for GLBTQs. I was disappointed that they weren't mentioned in the article. My minister will be officiating at my wedding next year, but won't sign the marriage license. I enthusiastically support his decision!

This is bullshit - there's is no law that denies anyone the right to get married (show me the law)- and thatt's not the problem! The problem is not the marriage itself but the recognition by the state - and the privilages that go with that marriage. Prop 8 says, in part - "...only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California..." This is not in defense of Prop 8 - and I believe that all marriages should be recognized by the state, but these churches are acting idiotic by refusing to marry anyone - they should be marring everyone and insisting that the state recognize what God already does...

Look..there is a real conflict here between civil/secular society and individual religious groups. Rather than try to resolve this in a way that will, ultimately, satisfy no one, why not completely separate civil marriage from "Church" marriage. The civil marriage is the legally binding contract that immediately invokes all the right, responsibilities and obligations of a marriage - the ones the State provides and enforces. The sanctification of that marriage is (and should be) up the Church of your choice.

By requiring the "church wedding" to be the final step of the contract actually gives Churches way too much power in this process and extends that power beyond their respective communities into society at large.

If two people show up at the County/City/Town clerk's office seeking a Marriage License it would seem that the witnessed signing of that certification should be all this is required to codify a marriage (as far as the Government is concerned). If you want that "marriage" to be sanctified and recognized by a religious body - then you would need to satisfy that group's particular requirements. But this is in addition to the civil event. Once the signed license has been issued by the government, recorded by the clerk and is in that couple's hands - they're are now a legal pair; end of story.

By forcibly blending the religious and secular we only make it nearly impossible to compromise in a way that allows society to provide a fully intact and fully lawful marriage to gays and lesbians. The only power a religious group should have is to deny membership/sanctification not deny two people the right to marry.

If there was ever an example of why the separation of church and state is a crucial element of our country - this is it.