Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.

In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?
Nicely summed up! The state has obviously had restrictions in place, and those are being changed as social mores change. My opinion: I too would prefer that the state not be party to the contract. My husband & I debated literally for years over this, as we agree, and wondered how to best solemnify our committments to each other & his children.

As in all things revolutionary, we also had the mundane to attend (jobs, etc.), and thus took the easy, socially sanctioned way, legal marriage. With our own Pagan twists, of course! (The Celebrant, my improv theatre teacher, got his license to marry us on the internet in 5 minutes, and we had our entire community pronounce us married as a collective.)

We married for fun, for joy, for recognition, for acceptance as a couple AND as a stepfamily, for ease of moving through our society, and to throw a fantabulous party. Many of the same reasons that others marry. Notably absent for us was a formal religious aspect, as we're both Pagan.

Since the legal status of 'married' exists, and many systems intertwine with this legal status, denying it to same gender couples is illogical, undemocratic, and indefensible in a civil society. And now, in some places, illegal. That is progress in a secular, civil society.