Comment: I totally agree

(See in situ)

I totally agree

with your sentiment that marriage should not be by the state or federal government, or any government institution. It should definitely be handled religiously. But I really think that in this day and age, arguing over this is just being very nitpicky. Because in the end, let's say that the state governments and federal governments all of a sudden come to their senses and say "hands off the marriage question!" and allow marriage to be settled religiously.

However, the state governments are still very likely to discriminate "gay marriages" and "straight marriages." This is the very heart of the problem! Then, "gay married couples" will say "Who cares if I can call my marriage a 'marriage?' That's not the solution I was looking for. I still want to be able to visit my spouse in the ICU, have tax benefits, have a say in autopsies, have a say in my spouse's medical procedures, renew leases for my spouse if he's not here, receive family rates for all types of insurance, etc."

In my opinion, even though I believe that marriage should be handled religiously, I don't believe that this is the political solution. I think the political solution would be to still allow state governments to decide whatever they want on gay marriage, and use the existing marriage benefits to apply to gay marriages if gay marriages are allowed in that state. It is very unlikely that the state of Virginia, for example, will discriminate against "gay marriages" and rescind the "marriage rights," if the people of Virginia have already voted yes for gay marriage.

Here's a great link for marriage benefits if anybody wanted to check it out.