You responded directly to my statement about civil marriage and same-sex couples, so yes, you did.Now you're arguing with yourself. I haven't said a thing about gay marriage, one way or the other.
But, since you asked - my opinion (which I'm sure you will label as dumb, irrational, etc) is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I would think that you would agree.
I would have no problem with that, so long as whatever civil union replaces it weren't limited on the basis of the sex of the partners and that all legal unions -- opposite-sex or same-sex -- were afforded the equal protections of the law.
After all, marriage is a religious practice.
Actually, marriage is a civil institution, too. The word is used in both contexts -- civil and ceremonial. In fact, a religious marriage isn't even a legal one. For that, you need a civil marriage.
What about "separation of church and state?" Should the government be giving licenses to people for a religious practice?
No, but civil marriage isn't a religious practice.
Again, I'd have no problem with a civil union for all. But the catholic, mormon, and Southern baptist churches are on record opposing this idea. They're even opposed to a "separate but equal" system of civil unions for same-sex couples only.Furthermore, if its none of the governments business who someone marries, then get the government out of it altogether.
So removing discrimination based solely on the sex of the partners is really the only practical alternative.
Certainly you can't, anyway.But, again we've come back to liberty vs. totalitarianism. I'll leave you to ponder that on your own.
Continue to feel free to argue with yourself. After all, no one can match your intellect but you.