After watching the youtube post of Keith Olbermans special comment on the issue the below response came to mind:
Some of the comments raise the point of marriage in its definition. Like the word and its use. I have personally said for a while now that it needs to be removed from the laws entirely for everyone - because of the sep of church and state.
Have one set of laws for everyone in the legal system, everyone applies for a civil union. Then they go home and plan their own ceremony calling it what ever they want and preformed in what ever style, venue, or manner they wish.
It would then be an expression of their own faith and belief's and would remove the government from the equation of trying to decide peoples rights to use a term.
Keith makes an excellent point on the history of marriage, and again it shows that rewording the law has not hurt or hindered the institution in any way. Since the institution side is of religious and or personal belief territory the law can do little to it if anything. The law can only affect the legal status of benefits and rights FOR EVERYONE
In my mind the laws of MARRIAGE are currently intrinsicly flawed to begin with. The term is being used where it should not, and it is lending to a blending of church and state where it should not.
I only hope that Our new Administration will see fit to right this wrong in some manner - either in a rewrite of the federal legislation totally - not to allow gay marriage, or to allow straight marriage; but to redefine the states role - one of granter of civil union and protector of the rights of everyone so that we can all go out and call it marriage, or union, or commitment, or whatever feels like the correct term to us.
We have let ourselves get wrapped up in a dictionary entry instead of the spirit of our constitution and the law. And look what has happened. So many people are fighting the right fight but so many cant see the forest from the tree's.
I just really think that we are fighting not the wrong battle but with the wrong opponent.
I mean how is it that the state is capable of legislating who can use one PERSONAL, RELIGIOUS ceremony and who they can pronounce their love with - but the people involved can not?