I agreed with everything you said until you said this.

I do think that it is quite inevitable that the sanctioning of gay marriage–if it is done by the courts–will, in fact, lead to polygamous/polyandrous relationshiops and other exotic relationships being so sanctioned. In fact, I think it’s foolish to deny that this will happen. Because if marrying anyone you want regardless of gender is a “Constutitional Right,” then the ability to resist other odd combinations in the courts will be virtually nil.

I didn’t say that was a bad thing. But I’m astonished that anyone thinks it’s not an inevitability.

If gay marriage is passed by legislation, perhaps not, but if manded by the courts? How can it possibly not be stretched further?

There are real government interests in safeguarding and promoting the institution of marriage. However, those interests don’t dovetail with limiting that institution of marriage to certain groups while excluding others. Equal protection under the law, remember?

I’d love it if, governmentally speaking, “marriage” was replaced by “civil union” or whatever you want to call it. Instead of getting your marriage license, go down to the courthouse, certify in front of a witness that you’re married to or in civil union with someone, pay your fee, and that should be it.

If you want to get married in a church of your choosing, fine. (for instance, I want to get married eventually, and I want it to happen in a church because I believe that making a commitment before God is an integral part of what marriage is.) But a church wedding shouldn’t be what the government needs to certify to itself that you’re married.

I believe it’s done this way in several European countries — couples do a quick civil ceremony, and then have the option of doing a religious wedding however they want to.

The main reason I think it wouldn’t be stretched further is that there would be an immediate grassroots effort to prevent it through legislation, up to and including a Constitutional amendment. Group marriage almost certainly falls outside most people’s range of acceptable lifestyle.

I am also interested in the suggestion in the comments that we should separate out the church and state aspects of marriage. I had a friend who would not sign the paperwork during his wedding ceremony (as is customary here) but waited until after the pronouncment - basically because he didn’t want the “state” involved in his marriage.

But I think that if we advocate this stream, the church is losing a unique opportunity to minister to the community at large on the issue of marriage.

Kelly