speaking as a bumder who finds religious politics unendingly fascinating
I think there is an inherent problem with asking for the right to have religious same sex marriage. Many religious people still hear "we're going to force your religion to conduct same sex marriage".
I personally believe that countries like France and Turkey have an excellent system whereby *only* the state ceremony is the legally binding one. The religious institutions there have no power to perform legal marriage, meaning you avoid this entire political palaver in the first place.
In those countries (along with Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain, Argentina), people must be married by a registrar first, and then they can have all the religious la-de-da that they want.
Take legal marriage away from the religions. THAT would be marriage equality.
(
admiral crunch holds the newsreader's nose squarely, Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:01,
Reply)
give the Catholics the choice and see how they squeal...
frankly they brought it on themselves, originally marriages didn't have to be registered with the state at all (no more so than any other sort of legally-binding contract), until The Roman Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Roman Catholic priest.
I'm all for returning to the original model.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:13,
Reply)
The romantic side of me agrees with you.
The practical side of me sees legal issues.
(
admiral crunch holds the newsreader's nose squarely, Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:40,
Reply)