Idea: Maybe the govt shouldn't have anything to do with marriage?!

Marriage is a mix between a simple contract between two people and a religious ceremony. We have a separation between church and state and why should the government have it's nose in your contract with someone else. I don't know this only makes since to me. I think you should be able to draw up a basic contract (by going to an attorney) and get married where ever and how ever you like. The government should just get the hell out of the whole thing.

Anyone with me? Does this make since?

and have said this before. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen.
But if the separation of church and state was really happening, all types of couples would be united under civil unions for govt. purposes and marriage would be a strictly religious ceremony. That's my view.

it being a religious ceremony.

I was married, but it wasn't religious. There was no minister--just a justice of the peace, me, hubby, about 30 people in a park on a beautiful summer day.

I agree with you that it is contractual, and that's how it should be. I don't think the government should have any say who gets married, as long as they are of the age of consent for marriage (I believe you can be 15 in SC to be married), and not married to another individual concurrently.

But I agree. I know several people who have completely gone without being 'legally' married (that is, without the marriage certificate and all that jazz), but have very airtight legal documents that basically give them all the rights of marriage (next of kin, medical decisions, wills, etc). They feel that marriage is nothing but a document that adds nothing to their relationship, and I agree. If you are committed to someone, you will be committed with them regardless of a peice of paper. It does add "legitimacy" to the relationship in the benefits of marriage. However, those same benefits (minus the wonderful "marriage tax" ugh) can be gotten through legal documents and the like.

And leave marriage to the Church.

I always wonder why we have marriage anymore. I figure that it's mostly to keep a man around to support his children, or to keep bloodlines (aka families) going. The first seems to be relevant, but the second may not be. Dunno, just asking.

and may exclude the religious entirely.

That marriage license, with the acutal ceremony (or lack of it) confirmed by the signature of a licensed cleric, judge, or JP, entitles the people entering into it all the rights and responsibilities of a first level blood relation. It covers a host of laws pertaining to the dissolution of the contract, from property rights to custodial and/or visitation rights to minor children. The government has made sure it's much more than a shackup some preacher has mumbled over. It is also a legal contract between two people, enforceable by law.

That's why it needs to be extended to all. Churches could follow their own consciences and refuse to perform weddings they disapprove of, but the civil contract needs to be an open one. Without the civil enforcement of marital rights and responsibilities, there is no marriage, no equitable property distribution, no protection for children within and after a marriage, no nothing.

Think about it.