I answered it below, but as it is a few days later, I will move my answer to the top, sorry for the double do.
==========
As one of the boards few "out" Christians, I'd like to take this one on.

The confusion lies in the dual nature of term "marriage". Marriage is actually a two-parter. It is simultaneously defined as a civil contract, granting a partnered couple legal rights and responsibilities in society, and as a religious sacrament, which defines the couples sacred relationship to each other in the eyes of God and of their faith community, as well as engaging the spiritual community's promise to support and nurture the couple and the family they become.

Civil union is for people of all belief systems or lack thereof. The wedding is the ceremony that formalizes the union, any wedding will accomplish this, be it jumping over a broomstick, going to the Justice of the Peace on your lunch break, or having a big luscious do. As long as you formalise the contract and sign the papers in front of witnesses, you are there in the eyes of the law.

A religious wedding ceremony is simultaneously a time to sign the legal papers for the civil union, and a Formal Order of Matrimony sacramental service to seal the the couple to God and to each other. Within the traditions of the sacrament, you make sacred promises to God, to each other, to your families, and to your community, as do these entities make promises to you. As such, this type of wedding is only meaningful for those who believe in marriage as a holy sacrament and wish the blessing and support of their God and their faith community on their life journey together.

You can legislate the terms of the civil contract, but the sacrament piece is not under the purview of the government. My own view is that the government should get out of the "marriage" business entirely. All civil contracts of bonded life-partners should contain the same rights and cover the same legal ground. The manner and arrangement of one's sacramental or ceremonial blessing of that bond is up to the couple and the community they choose to celebrate with. IMHO.

...and well-trod ground, but almost all of this legislation includes civil unions in the prohibition, so the distinction is moot.  The real issue is civil recognition and the rights and obligations associated with it.

the gov't starts granting "civil unions" rather than "marriages" in city hall, hetero and homo alike, then I suppose I could see that differentiation. But as long as people can get "married" at city hall, then it had better be open to all people; otherwise the gov't is practicing discrimination.

gOO's question was "all the candidates say they are against gay marriage, but pro gay "rights". Is this just a religious issue? If not, absent the "ick factor", as Joseph would say, what is the problem?"

I do believe it is a religious issue, the main reason this is so contentious. Candidates want it both ways, to be legally fair but not rock the mainstream Christian boat on that "man and woman" thing. Wasn't that long ago they all though Jesus cared about what color your spouse to be was. I think this will change as well.

and to clarify, I think the right of same sex folks to be legal life partners will be the law of the land within the next 10 to 20 years, but it might not include the term Marriage, as that has a specific religious meaning.

...but I would dispute that this is a church-state issue, though a lot of people will say they're against gay marriage because "it's in the Bible!"

 

but the Bible has no place in law-making. And besides, what if you don't believe a word of it?

xo

Who cares how well trod it is? I don't. I really appreciated Ruthie's full discussion because Goo's post really called out for such an answer and discussion.

That no one bit, right away, is not because the discussion is "over", to trod and all, but because sometimes there isn't the time or energy to give a full and thoughtful response, as Ruthie graciously did.

...Ruthe, sorry if you felt that way. 

I think the distinctions well-meaning people wrap around this issue (like the difference between a marriage and a civil union) obscure the fact that it's wrong, pure and simple, to deny people their rights as the various so-called protection of marriage acts do.  And it's NOT a religious issue at all, however people want to pose it - it's a civil rights issue.  It's not religion that denies this right to people - in fact many churches and synagogues recognize, sanction, and perform such weddings.  Many do not.  But just because the Congregationalists in Des Moines will perform a gay wedding (they have, with my mother in attendance even) doesn't mean the couple has the rights and responsibilities of a married couple in Iowa.   This is why I disagree that it's a church-state separation issue.

a gay couple can marry, now. But if that couple wants their marriage to be accepted within the Catholic religion, the Muslim religion, and most of the Jewish religion, that won't happen.

I guess the government outlawed polygamy, so maybe it can outlaw the ban on gay marriages that is in most religions. But should the government be dictating religious doctrine?

I don't think so.

They came close, when they told Utah, "Unless one of them Mormon big-shots has a divine revelation that says polygamy is no longer cool, Utah can't become a State." Hey presto! Divine revelation! Statehood for Utah! But the government didn't dictate anything, heavens no. Nor did the Mormons in any way compromise the principles of the faith in order to obtain political consideration. Of course they didn't.

huqw

Thanks.

No wonder I am so cynical about religion.

...be dictating religious doctrine.  But deciding to not upset the Christian applecart as Ruthie said isn't doing that.  It's really more the other way around - religious doctrine held by many Americans is dictating public policy.   I don't like that any better, mind you.  The fact is most people don't support gay marriage.  It may be for religious reasons, it may be otherwise, but it's not a wise thing to get out front on something like this if you want to get elected. 

It's not a separation issue to me, though, unless the laws implementing the bans specifically call out a religious doctrine.  Just saying "marriage is the union between one man and one woman" doesn't do that.

The only good news in this for me is that the steam seems to be running out of this as a red state red meat issue.  Too many REAL things to worry about now.

"My own view is that the government should get out of the 'marriage' business entirely."

You're a Libertarian on this issue.

huqw

Thanks, Ruthie.

xoxo

I didn't even know you were Christian.

Now those evil lines in Tooner's cartoons make even more sense!!!
Aarrgh, matey!

You guys are so smart.
I would've killed to be a fly on the wall during the coffee/talk portions of your first dates. Bet that was something.