the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

You did a much better job of stating this. With respect to your earlier point...

imagine all of the bearocracy, forms, and red tape that are set up around "married/unmarried" status that would have to change to reflect the parity of marriages and civil unions.


Playing devil's advocate with myself, I can ask the "Where does it all end?" question that I think some folks opposed to same-sex marriage ask: Three-or four-way marriages? The return of polygamy? In the end though, I don't get too hung up by "what-ifs" -- better to deal with the problem at hand.
...your "red tape" argument is pretty compelling. Forget what I said about civil unions if it implied any new category. You have my vote.

Thanks, BTW for joining this discussion. It probably actually addressed Greg's original question and perhaps kept this from becoming a Total Hetero Chin Wag.

(Oh, and if it comes to that will NWA take my UAL miles?!?)