[I originally posted this on yanthor.net. I've decided to crosspost it here so the rest of the world can read it.]

I believe that inasmuch as the state has authority to preside over marriages, it should treat all people equally, regardless of sexual orientation. So you might say that I favor allowing gay marriage. However, I do not see state sanctioned gay marriage as the optimal solution.

Why should the government have any business granting marriages at all? This has traditionally been, and should go back to being, solely within the domain of churches. The government should have no part in it. "Marriage Licenses" as currently issued by the state should be abolished. (Of course, they could still be obtained from a church or other private entity. But without conferring any legal distinction, except perhaps under contract law where applicable.)

This still leaves the issue of how to go about conferring rights traditionally associated with marriage. Hospital visitation, joint ownership of property, custody of children, etc. For this, the state should still provide a general purpose, all-encompassing contract that could be entered into by anyone who wants to. ("Civil union" seems to be as good a term as any.)

Some might argue that this is merely playing word games. It's changing the name of things, while still performing effectively the same function. I would counter that a "civil union" law, if implemented correctly, could be far more versatile and useful than the narrow purpose of simply allowing gay people equal rights under the law.

A "civil union" would not necessarily even have to imply a romantic relationship. It's only a legal document. Therefore, if someone wanted to enter into a "civil union" with a sibling or best friend, they would be able to do so. Imagine the benifits! I could, in one simple stroke, say that if I get sick or die, my brother (or best friend from first grade... whoever) would automatically have the right to visit me in the hospital, be declared the legal guardian of my children if I am a single parent, be able to share my health insurance, etc etc etc.

So anyway, in my opinion, both sides are making this whole debate far more complicated and contentious than it needs to be. That's my rant for the day.