Greetings, PV,

I read your opinions with interest. As we may have discussed before, I take a slightly different tack.

Currently, there are three parts of a marriage. These parts are typically considered inviolate -- however, that has never been true.

Marriage is a religious institution, it is a contractual obligation, and it is a civil union.

From the religious perspective, the government has no say. If any religion wants to sanctify as marriage (vis a vis the religion itself) the relationship between any two people, there is nothing the state can do. Nor is there is anything the state should do or even want to do. Religious traditions, precepts, and dogma are only managed or infiltrated by the state in a theocracy, and we have not yet reached a point where we are a theocracy.

Marriage is also a contractual obligation between two people. Once again, the state has no right or reason to interfere in the voluntary agreements made by two people beyond the age of consent. It should be noted, that this obligation can exist without either religious or state consent. Indeed, the entire concept of common-law marriages is based upon such an arrangement. Common law marriages are when two people promise each other all of the fealty etcetera explicit in the marriage ceremony -- with or without a church's blessing, but definitely WITHOUT the blessing of the state.

The vexing part of the equation has to do with the civil union aspect of marriage. As you implied in your last published note -- this one does not much matter. Why should two people who have sworn to each other, potentially in front of and with the blessing of their god, care whether or not the state recognizes their union?

Think about it rationally for a minute. Why should the state have to be a signatory on the contract between you and your spouse? There are few (if any) other contracts that require state intervention. Why should the most personal and private contract be the one in which the state needs to be party?

The only reason - as far as the couple is involved -- is money.

By having a "legal" marriage, a couple can benefit from tax laws, probate laws, benefit plans, insurance discounts, credit score adjustments, and hundreds of other small areas where marriage is viewed an entity as being "better" than being single. But most of these areas are not rights.

If benefit and insurance plans do not recognize as a spouse the partner in a gay marriage, that is THEIR right to define their clientele as they choose. Similarly, it is the right of the couple to shop around and find a plan that provides them the best protection for their circumstances.

Tax law (and other laws) is potentially unconstitutional in that they define a class of citizens (Married), and treat them differently from another class of citizens (Single). If the tax law is unconstitutional because it does not recognize gay unions as marriages, then it is just as unconstitutional to treat single people as a separate class from married people. (Similar arguments can be made for family law.) I believe that this should be the line of reasoning by anyone trying to address the issue in the courts.

However, many of these issues can be easily remedied today. If probate assumes certain things in the absence of other documentation, these assumptions can be easily put to rest by wills or other explicit portions of a contractual obligation.

The entire issue of gay marriage is a red herring by both sides.

It should have been left alone -- but now that it has been broached, it may make sense to do away with the concept of the state endorsed marriage altogether.

To put it bluntly, the civil union idea of marriage was a bad idea from the start. We have never really needed the blessing of the state to marry whom we wish. We do not need to do so now. Again -- think objectively and rationally -- how can you justify the state being the third party in your marriage? I challenge ANY thinking Republican to show me why we need Civil Unions between ANY two people.

Jim Lenahan
Gwinnett County