I haven't read up enough on the history of marriage as to whether it was initially and fully considered a religious practice over a civil (government) practice. I myself consider it a religious practice where I am unified into one flesh with an opposite gender person, and that once you're put together, it's really ugly to pull it apart, and you can't ever fully rip it apart. Stuff lingers (especially if you had kids with that person).
I would rather propose since it seems like the debate is more about rights, is that I liked the idea of civil unions. I think that if you promise yourself to another person, there should be a box you can check for taxes for filing jointly as a civil union, should be able to give them death benefits, and any other items that the government gives to married couples. They could even wear rings signifying that they have made a commitment to another person. Just don't have them say that they are married, because that word has a set of meanings behind it that for myself at least, assumes then they are a heterosexual person married to another heterosexual person.
If the government wants to give them equal rights (and I agree with this), then let them. But don't call it marriage, otherwise the word "marriage" really starts to lose its meaning.
A really good example of this is the word "gentlemen" which I learned about from the C.S. Lewis book "Mere Christianity".
http://glenn.typepad.com/news/2003/08/c ... n_the.html
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Don't let "marriage" become a useless word.
Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius
History is gradually being rewritten to reflect the mores of our current culture. Why not do the same with the Constitution as amended? Perhaps there is a job on obama's staff for you..... just kidding. Anyway, an interesting discussion with many different perspectives.