Hi Kathy,
I may not qualify to enter this discussion fully as I guess you are talking USA and government however I do have a view on the issue which might be helpful.
There is, I am sorry to say, a distinct difference between civil and religeous marriage.
Both are a comittment made between two people to share their lives for love, support and procreation. The issue of civil parnerships between same sex couples being a separate issue and one which I'm sure will arise here but one which I think needs dealing with separately.
Marriage as I understand it is just what I said, a commitment to each other.
This commitment is a matter of personal choice and decision but should not be entered lightly. There are, of course, financial and business matters tied up in any legal marriage requirement as well as issues regarding present or future children.
I believe that any marriage agreement should be as fair and equal as posible to both parties and take into consideration the fact that one day the feelings of one or more partner might change. The law needs to be robust enough to defend any partner who has been unfairly treated and I beleive that there should be a broad base of discussion by an impartial group before a final ruling is made to dissolve such a partnership, one judge should not have the personal decision.
You in the States have always had State variations in law which sometimes makes for crazy situations but that also gives a wide choice of detail and committment making a ceremony and agreement a much more tailor made possibility. Right or wrong you can choose a religeous or civil wedding as long as it fits within the general framework of the national governments understanding.
I suggest that things be left as they are but with the removal of unfair clauses likely to benefit one partner.
There is a lot of room for other types of marriage to be given equal but different status within the law without compromising the standard institution.
Whether you are a Christian in all its official guises, a muslim a hindu, a jew, a.............. the list goes on but it should be recogniseable that the differences in the overall national view should be small., leaving it to the particular religeous group to fit within or modify the law. In an attempt to satisfy different groups the whole institution is being subjected to wider and wider definitions. This is not the way too go, check Europe, I assure you.
Lets keep the definition simple and strong and allow different groups the say in what they want as long as it is within existing law. If law needs changing in different areas then so be it. I am now a champion of the majority but will defend the right of the minority to have a voice and the right to be heard.
Please dont allow this institution of marriage to be debased further. Respect each other and keep up a dialogue, please.
Roger