Marriage is a religious institution, eg. the phrase "What God has joined together let no man rend asunder." On the other hand, the state has an interest in the legal, social, and economic ramifications of committed coupling. This creates a classic example of tension between the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state and the needs of a regulated society.
That tension has been publicized recently by the court overthrow of California's ban on same-sex marriages. Religious people feel this is a fundamental threat to the "sanctity" and meaning of marriage. Indeed the Bible describes marriage as a God-ratified union between man and wife.
Since marriage is essentially a religious function the state has no business defining, controlling, authorizing, or forbidding it. All these functions should be under the control of the varied panoply of religious institutions, each having its own definitions on the nature of marriage.
On the other hand, regulation of family unions has extensive elements over which the state has legitimate interest and control. Exemplary issues include property ownership, legal and material issues regarding members of that social entity, issues of inheritance, medical authorizations, etc.
There is a way to preserve the essentially religious definitions of marriage and still meet all the legitimate interests of governmnet. Simply replace every legal reference to marriage with "civil union." This distinction allows every church to define marriage on its own terms. At the same time it allows the state to recognize and extend equal privileges to any group wishing to be legally and socially joined together. Separate laws will not then be needed to account for the variety of human couplings, and all such couplings will be extended equal rights and privileges so long as they have filed and ratified the essential government papers and conditions.
The Bible says "there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." Such associations will be equally sanctioned along with those involving copulation. Why can't the churches and politicians get behind such a proposition instead of creating division and dissent with this back and forth struggle over the banning and permitting of same-sex marriages?
