Not Good Enough

Much agreed, but until the government no longer allows the legislation of morality us gays will have to keep fighting for the right to be equal in that sense. As for the tax breaks...most of us could care less...I just do not want something to ever happen to my partner (ie. car accident--coma--vegetable) where my voice is legally mute because we are not "married."

^^^
That.

Um I really don't see how that in any way would be handing over a civil institution to the churches. Seems like they have that already, even though you need a license from the government to do it. Why do priests always say "by the power vested in me by such and such a state" at the end of the ceremony? It's that directly giving the churches civil power?

As I said before, you can call yourself married if you like, I do, even though my wedding was %100 free from any religious involvement, done in a VFW hall, and performed by a friend of ours. The churches already seem to claim the right to marry people. That is one of their main, if false, arguments against gay marriage, that they would be forced by the state to perform them.

I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion, when that is the exact opposite of what I am proposing. I want to completely disentangle the bizarre "marriage" of church and state we have now. The last thing I want to do is give the churches any legal authority of any kind.

While you may be technically and legally correct, I don't think the churches see it that way. Of course, that doesn't mean their perception is correct. Their whole "defense of marriage" argument, to me at least, makes me think that they seem to believe that they own marriage, and "allow" the state to issue licenses. Maybe part of the gay marriage campaign should focus on making it clear to everyone that the churches do not currently own marriage.

So this is purely an argument in semantics?!?

Sarcasm aside, I do agree. Can we not let gays have the same rights as everyone else?

If you both make close to the same amount of money then the advantages go away. In a marriage where one spouse makes more than the other, such advantages do exist.

50 different state legislature and the federal congress control at least 51 different sets of inheritance laws, and no one can wave a magic wand and make all those change at once. It would be a mess.

One could try to do it as a US constitutional amendment, but that requires ratification by 3/4 of all state legislatures and again that is a mess.

Bottom line it is not a cheap or easy solution.

Yup, and said "religious nutters" have effective control a lot of state legislatures, probably more than 1/4 of the 50 states, and are powerful in many others. You cannot in a representative democracy ignore a large well organized minority, or run roughshod over them. It just don't work.

Real world 101, this (the USA) is a representative democracy. You cannot force laws you think are correct on others when they have more votes than you on a given subject. witness what happened with prop 8, the side that had more votes won.

The sane way to deal with this situation is to organize your side and build bridges to others who can be persuaded to agree with your side, and try an put wedges into the opposing political coalition, not to call names and alienate potential allies.

Hear, hear. "Marriage" in itself is strictly a cultural ritual or ceremony where the union of two persons is formalized in the eyes of one's peers. It matters not where such a ceremony is performed but it matters naught to the state, unless that little piece of official paper is certified and signed by an authorized witness. Without that certificate, you could have marriages all day long, to as many people you want, and with whomever you wanted. It's all about the civil recognition and rights that go along with a union that matter.

Separation of church and state ought to go both ways, it's about time we get that straight. Er, well...