Hey, Tony. Sorry for the silence -- I've been so pinned down by work and home issues that getting the occasional item together for my own blog has been about as much as I could manage. I've only just begun to attempt to catch up on missed blogs. Indeed, even now I was only able to give a quick reading of this thread.

First, I hope I didn't offend anyone with my earlier comments concerning religion. They're my beliefs - one might see them as a lack thereof - and I admit to having little patience for dealing with True Believers, but I understand the strength of such beliefs. I was raised a Roman Catholic. (Indeed, due to my father being attached to the US embassy at the time, I was born and baptized in Rome. I even have a large papal blessing, written on parchment, granting me full absolution upon death providing I'm heartily sorry for my sins -- heh, maybe this makes me feel a little bulletproof on some subconscious level.) It's a background I generally feel scarred by, and one that has embedded a variety of superstitions in me that I still do battle with almost daily. But... I digress...

The gay marriage issue (and, continued apologies if this turns out to have already been covered in one of the links) has its roots and its solution in the interface between government and marriage. Quite simply, the government should not be giving out marriage licenses.

The government is concerned with taxes and services, and to that end should only be granting certificates of legal, civil union. The term "marriage" should be reserved for individual belief structures. Consider how the beliefs of various orthodox faiths have strict guidelines concerning what constitutes a true marriage. Some insist on a priest or a rabbi, often with a period of related religious study. For their view, the rest of the unions in the world aren't true, blessed marriages. All of these things should be non-issues for the government.

Separating government-acknowledged civil unions from the religious institution of marriage - the latter available in a multitude of denominational flavors - is something that should be done for the benefit of all. It keeps the government in its necessarily Earthly realm and leaves matters of Eternity to the faithful. Indeed, on the latter point, I think that the religious institution of marriage has been eroded by making it interchangeable with something granted by a clerk who, well, doesn't know the couple from Adam and Eve. The government should stick to practical matters and leave the rest alone.

I have no idea if any of this will help, but it is the direction I've decided to push my elected representatives towards.

I want to congratulate you both on the long, careful consideration of these issues, and for what has been a difficult struggle.

Mike Norton