>>I always figured that the simple solution is to make all unions (same or opposite sex) "civil unions" as far as the law is concerned. Remove the word "marriage" from the argument and leave it to the individuals to refer to themselves as they wish. The whole hangup seems to be because of a word. Well, that and the money and the issue of course. ;)
>
>Yes, I think the solution is indeed to make the civil recognition of partnership just that - a civil contract and voluntary acceptance of a mutual status regarding guardian and conservatorship, inheritance and common property rights etc. And that would apply to the states' involvement in hetero or homosexual partnerships. "Marriage" should be one way of characterizing the union and people could adopt it or not as part of the contract.


Eminently reasonable. The problem, of course, is the very large segment of the religious population who can't stand the thought that everyone doesn't share their beliefs and social mores. They probably wouldn't like the word, with its connotations of the Islamic world, but what they really want is a theocracy. They want to take down the wall between church and state and have the views of their church instituted as laws and rules of conduct.

Not all American Christians are like that, but an awful lot of them are, and they aren't shy about trying to change laws to their liking.