Someone threw out the idea of calling marriage something else. I agree. I think it's a great idea to create a type of union that exists outside of the realm of religion. I think we should call it a "social union". Then a (wo)man could get socially unioned to another (wo)man. ;D

And if they don't get along, they can get socially divided!

@ winged centaur We have this in the UK, it is called a civil partnership and it gives people the same rights as those who are married.

@Transit, I was half joking, but if this is a reality somewhere, I don't see why we can't adopt something like this in the U.S.

I don't follow a lot of news and current events. Is there a movement for something like this at all?

Gay couples can marry in four US states can't they? I know other states do offer civil partnerships as well, sometimes they are called domestic partnerships, which give equal rights to marriage.

Unfortunately the idea of "separate but equal" has been heard before (Plessy vs Ferguson, later overturned in Brown vs Board of Education). Giving homosexuals a "runner up" prize in the form of civil unions is unconstitutional. What needs to be done is abolish the term marriage, and have everyone that wishes to have their union recognized by the state and federal governments (for tax, legal, and other purposes) have a civil contract of union, and let "marriage" be merely a religious-based ceremony.

In Pennsylvania, Quakers can be legally married with a Quaker marriage certificate, which if you are familiar with the Society of Friends, doesn't have an officiant. This is an example of a different form of union than the traditional "marriage" with an officiant. But non-Quakers can get legally married with that Quaker marriage certificates as well.

If we created a separate civil contract of union, without abolishing marriage in its current form, and have that option for everyone (homo or hetero), then that's how we can sneak it in. The idea of abolishing marriage first to be replaced will never happen, since it's so rooted in religion. Even people who aren't against gay marriage would probably be against replacing marriage with civil contracts of union.

I hope that all just made sense.

@Winged: I'm not saying marriage need be abolished, but for legal purposes, one must instead file the "civil contract" with the government. People can have their religion-rooted marriages and weddings, but for all legal purposes, removing the term marriage would be fine.

The separate contract still falls under the "separate but equal" clause which is unconstitutional.

I hope it can be done. Separating civil unions from the religious wedding would theoretically eliminate the whole "but it's against the religion" argument. Ignoring the whole issue of homosexual marriages, I've always thought marriage in the legal sense should follow the rule of separation of church and state. Let's take religion out of the equation here. I don't care if marriage has roots in religion, atheists can get legally married. It's a legal contract, not a religious one.

@Winged: Your last statement sums up entirely what I wish could be done also -- let "marriage" be a religious institution, but to actually be recognized legally, let there be a civil contract.

If it's going to be done, I think it needs to be done on the front of separation of church and state and not the front of homosexual rights. We gotta do it sideways.