hedwards: Personally, I'd rather that they took the government more or less completely out of the picture for any couples that want to get married, provided that they were adults and not already married to anybody else. Then more or less let the various religious denominations do as they please with how they handle religious marriage.
Dragobr: Well, I use "marriage" as a more general term, but I'll use "civil union" from now on.
So, non-religious people might want to make a civil union too, which is why I believe the churches should stay out of it, not the state.
It's my case. We are not religious, but we might still want to make a contract where the property of one of us would go to the other in case of death, for example.
So, I think religious marriages should be legally void, but the legal union should be flexible, so that each couple (or group) could set it's terms according to their religion, or overall interests if religion is not involved.
I can't argue with that, I think there's a lot of sense in it.
Around here we have civil unions for straight couples that are over a certain age. Since the civil unions that we have aren't recognized by the federal government anyways, it allows people collection social security to get functionally married without giving up their social security income. It doesn't come with any federal recognition, but it does carry with it all the rights that would be available under state law to a married couple.
It was originally a way to make it easier to get all the rights under state law for same sex couples, but it does have advantages and I'd like to see it extended to any pair of consenting adults that want it.
Nafe: Not all opinions are worthy of tolerance. If we were talking about equal rights for black people, would you consider it bad form to downvote people that were against it?
SLP2000: And you feel competent to judge which ones?
Lately some Canadian TV speaker lost his job, because he tweeted that he supports traditional meaning of the word marriage.
People are loosing jobs because someone thinks they have no right to speak for what they believe in.
In Great Britain some people were not allowed to adopt children because they refused to say they support same sex marriages.
Intolerance is when you are punished for what you believe or what you speak.
When you do that sort of thing on the job, you have to adhere to the law. There's tons of things that I can say at home or on my personal time which would get me fired at work. I don't see anything wrong with that, provided there's adequate protection for honest misunderstandings.
As for intolerance, I see no reason why I should be tolerant of people who behave like bigoted morons. There is no integrity in tolerating bigotry.