Key re same-sex marriage: The word "Marriage" has at least two meanings.

[JDPriestly]

One is the legal status which can be achieved through a civil ceremony or, in some states that recognize common law marriage, when a couple lives together as man and wife for a legally established time.

Another is the religious rite.

Obvious? Yes. But those who oppose same-sex marriage often do not understand this fact -- or simply haven't thought it through.

Lots of people think that somehow the two are the same thing.

I think that the confusion arises because religious officials -- rabbis, priests, pastors are usually authorized by the government to perform marriages that are both civil and religious in nature.

Newly-weds generally sign the documents that make them legally man and wife before or after the religious rite. For that reason many of them don't realize that, in fact, the legal and religious portions of their church wedding are separate events.

So, when someone says they oppose same-sex marriage, tactfully check to see whether they understand the difference between the two meanings of the word "marriage."

If someone just does not understand, remind them that people sometimes commemorate their marriage by holding a second religious ceremony to renew their vows. They don't have to sign any legal documents because the renewal is a strictly religious ceremony. Similarly, remind them again that people can choose to marry without a religious ceremony.

And reassure them that, thanks to separation of church and state, our government cannot require their religion to perform or recognize same-sex marriages (or marriages of people of a different religion without conditions).

So, same-sex marriage really has no effect on the religious or personal life of people not in the marriage. None whatsoever.

[csziggy]

1. My husband thought we only had a civil union because we were not

Married in a religious ceremony (or any ceremony at all). We had a whole discussion Wednesday about how that is OK for us, a heterosexual couple since we automatically get all the legal benefits of marriage whether or not we consider our partnership a civil union or marriage. My major point was that the 'civil union' some think adequate for same sex couples cannot be as long as it does not confer all those rights. Without marriage equality, same sex couples will not get those rights without fighting the battle in ever state and through the federal government.

We won't stop referring to our partnership as a 'civil union' - it has great shock value for the few conservatives who have to interact with. But we also will continue to support marriage equality for all.

[XemaSab]

2. I've been saying this for years

The state cannot make two people "one flesh," and the church cannot enforce legal contracts.