Marriage would survive, perhaps even thrive among some, but a smaller segment of society IMO.

We could also remove government endorsement of child support and let the institution of parenting stand on its own, unpropped. But I get your point.

It sounds like your complaint is that without government support, the institution of marriage will wither and die, and with it a powerful metaphor for Christ’s love.

What does it say about the strength of an institution if the only way it can survive is by direct government support? About the ability of Christ’s love to be understood?

Surely Christ’s love is more transcendent than such temporal concerns.

Not all churches, just some. Many churches will take their emphasis on equality and fairness right into church, to their members, and offer same sex marriage, partly because the government won’t. Some will risk scorn by clinging to Biblical, heterosexual marriage.

Our children and grandchildren will be surrounded by civil unions. To choose church marriage in a church which only performs heterosexual marriage would be increasingly uncommon, a minority, somewhat quaint, using unenlightened, sexist terms like husband and wife, bride and groom.

Bride and groom. Church and Christ. One day that beautiful concept may become almost impossible to explain.

I like Doug Laycock, he was one of my best professors. But I’ll have to heartily disagree.

I’m torn because of my convictions on morality, but also the Baptist side of me that believes in liberty and separation of church and state. I couldn’t fathom how the government could tell a church to preform a marriage for a same sex couple if the church or denomination is not in favor. Although I decided there needed to be a distinction between religious and civil services, I had not thought of a solution like Dr. Campolo. I think I need to mull over this for a few days. But good going BDW.

This will be harder in KY since, in ‘04, KY was one of many states to panic over MA and amend its Constitution to rule out both same-sex marriage and “marriage-like arrangements.” However, GLBT folks have made gains even here: Louisville and Lexington have adopted “Fairness Amendments” to their civil rights codes which prevent discrimination against GLBT folks in job hiring and promotion and in housing (with religious liberty exceptions for faith groups–unless they take Caesar’s coin) and there is growing support for this to be adopted at the state level (though also much oppostion). The KY Supreme Court upheld the University of Louisville and University of Kentucky extending health benefits, etc. to domestic partners in same-sex relationships.

If marriage is a “holy union” and considered a sacrament (as it historically has been by large numbers of Christians) then denying a same-sex couple the opportunity to enter into such a legal relationship with the state is indeed a religious liberty issue. And the question is, whose morality? Several religious denominations are already proponents of same-sex marriage. Efforts to keep same-sex couples from entering into a legal marriage give some religious traditions favored treatment. The question of “whose morality?” disappears when the state gets out of the marriage business, to paraphrase Campolo.

When a religious ritual is at the center of a public controversy, you’ll be hard-pressed to make an argument that there are not also religious liberty concerns.

“I think it would be extremely difficult to advocate for something that redefines marriage in a manner that is completely inconsistent with Christian faith on the one hand, as an act of “loving your neighbor,” and then be able to address the spiritual condition of the individuals involved in a same-sex relationship on the other hand.”

No, not extremely difficult. I am 100% in favor of civil rights for all Americans especially African-Americans. But, if a pastor wants to preach that inter-racial marriage is sinful, I support their right to do so. That’s a religious liberty issue as well. My Christian faith makes no room for such blatant racism. I can continue to address the issue of racism in church and if I were a pastor would do so from the pulpit. But, I don’t have to advocate the suppression of the right to be a racist (religiously-motivated racism) because I believe in religious freedom for all including those whose beliefs I despise.

It is an issue that is not going away and must be resolved. Dark, tunneled vision fundamentalism like mom2’s will not solve it. Maybe as these younger people move into the mainstream, there will be a more likely softening of the church’s view and some resolution can take place.

If a couple with kids wanted to dissolve their civil union, the civil courts (as Laycock demonstrates) would sort that out as they do now. If a couple (with kids) who were married by their church but had not sought a civil union from the state split up, the state would sort that out in Family Court as well. There are obviously thousands and thousands of unwed parents in America.

If marriage truly is a sacred and a religious institution, government should not be in the business of determining who can and can not get married and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

There will obviously be issues relating to conflicts between religious liberty and increased gay rights. But as Jonathan Turley, Oliver Thomas and Douglas Laycock have all argued, separating religious from civil marriage is the best solution to this debate.

In my opinion, loving one’s neighbor requires that we support public policies that promote the principles of equality, fairness and which serve the common good. One need not affirm a particular type of relationship in order to affirm their right to enter into that type of relationship. Similarly, respect for religious freedom does not demand that we affirm the theology of Muslims and Jews. But respect for religious freedom does require that we affirm the right of the Muslim and the Jew to believe as they do.

What “younger people” are thinking with regard to same sex partnerships is completely irrelevant to God’s truth regarding such relationships. Truth is revealed, not discerned by an opinion poll, and I don’t see that extending legal recognition to same sex relationships is a Biblically endorsed means of loving one’s neighbor.