Redefining "Marriage"

If religion is a sacrament and is holy, as so many opponents of gay marriage claim, then doesn't this mean that the government should get out of the business of promoting it? Perhaps the government should only be involved with "civil unions," whether the couples are homosexual or heterosexual.

Eugene Gibas writes in the Arizona Republic:

If marriage is a sacrament, what business does the government have doing marriages? Shouldn't government, the state, get out of the religious realm and concern itself only with civil unions? ... "Marriage" would not be mentioned in state statutes, being seen purely as a religious matter. Churches could set up any sort of requirement they wish for marriage, including a contract of civil union. Couples wishing to be joined in marriage but without the obligations spelled out in a civil-union contract also could do so.

Gibas make a good point, but I think that there is one problem with it: why should the government stop using the concept of "marriage" simply because, for some religious people, "marriage" is a sacrament? Why can't there be a "civil marriage" as well as "religious marriage"? It seems to me that abandoning the term "marriage" entirely is conceding too much to religious leaders - especially when we remember that religious leaders all disagree on what the requirements for "marriage" are. If there can be dozens and dozens of "religious" marriages, all different, then why not add one more marriage: the civil marriage?

Read More:

• Ethics of Gay Marriage
• Separation of Church and State 101