BAN Marriage! For Everybody!

Marriage should be banned. For everybody
Banning marriage and striking the term from the federal/state legislative codes, will be the most sensible thing of our generation. Plus, it would be constitutional. Right now, I don’t think a marriage statute in any state is constitutional because the intercourse between the state and religion is clearly proscribed by both our federal and state constitutions.
The whole notion of “marriage” comes from our religious dogmas and doctrines and probably dates back Before Christ. It is from the Biblical teachings that we formed our morality about marriage, family, right and wrong. And the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. And if you are a believer in what the Bible says, obviously, you can’t just cut that out because it is unpopular.
Now, whatever a person’s religious beliefs on this issue is irrelevant from a legal perspective. The bottom line is that the First Amendment prohibits the state from meddling in people’s religious affairs. And by proscribing marriage for some people and allowing it for others, the state is clearly endorsing one religious viewpoint over the other. Marriage is a  religious issue. It is about the Bible and what the Bible says. But not everybody believes in what the Bible says. Not everybody subscribes to these religious views. 
Marriage” is, and should be, church law. It is not common law or statutory law and the word should not even be on the legislative books and codes.
Here is what I think the solution to the problem is: BAN MARRIAGE in all states. If a person wants to get “married” she or she should go to their church and get married. If a particular church does not allow marriages between certain persons, those persons should simply go to a different church. People should not have to apologize for their religious views whatever those views happen to be.
But. The state should apologize for meddling in people’s religious affairs. If two men think there is nothing wrong with having sex with each other, and they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and share their assets, they should be constitutionally allowed to do that. Same with two women. But I would not call it marriage. It is not a marriage. It is a domestic agreement. That is what they have. (Again, “marriage” is church/religious/Biblical dogma; and the Bible clearly says that the very basis of a homosexual relationship is an “abomination.” Therefore, by the very definition in the Bible, same sex couples can’t “marry.”) But it doesn’t mean they can’t have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. It shouldn’t mean that. 
And what goes for the goose should likewise go for the gander. If a man and a woman want to spend the rest of their lives together and share their assets, etc, they should be allowed to freely do that. Same sex couples don’t have the right to tell heterosexual couples how to live their lives and vice versa. As in the case of same sex couples, heterosexual unions should be  “domestic agreements” from a strictly legislative point of view.
If that domestic arrangement is a “pluralistic” situation, where you have more than two people wanting to share themselves and their assets (aka polygamy), they should also have the right to live the way they want–constitutionally. And they would likewise have a domestic agreement. We don’t have to agree with it, it doesn’t have to be for us, but I think all citizens should have the same legal rights pursuant to state law.
However, church law is a different matter. Nobody gets a “marriage” unless it is in a church and it is endorsed by their religious elders. “Marriage” therefore would not have a force of law. It has the force of one’s religious head, or “God.” It is purely ecclesiastical. It is Biblical. It is “spiritual” in a “religioius” sense.
Everybody, on the other hand, can have a domestic agreement pursuant to the laws of the state where they live. That is equal protection under the constitution of the United States, and also under the State Constitutions as well. That is what this country is about. Freedom to choose.
I am tired of this marriage debate already. The solution is simple. Ban the term marriage from the state and federal legislations, statutes and codes. Marriage is a religious issue. Stop using the word marriage to describe a contractual relationship; marriage is a covenant that “Believers” make with their God. It has nothing to do with the state’s contractual laws. Nothing at all.
The Bible says that homosexuality is verboten. Okay. Don’t shoot the messenger. That is what it says. Therefore marriage between homosexuals is verboten by association. BUT ONLY FROM A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE! Again, it is from our religious dogmas and moral codes that the word “marriage” derives.
The state needs to separate itself from religion. The state needs to give all citizens the same legal rights. The state needs to take the Biblical/moral code out of its discourse on whether same sex couples will have the same legal rights of togetherness as heterosexuals. The state needs to stop using the word marriage. Take marriage out of the conversation, then it will be easier to do the right thing, according to the Constitution.
You want to get “married”? Go to your house of worship and have your priest, or religious personnel issue you a marriage certificate. You want the rights traditionally bestowed by the state such as inheritance rights, equitable distribution, etc? That every citizen should get but it is not “marriage.” It is a domestic agreement. IT IS CONTRACT LAW, FOR CHRISSAKES. It has nothing to do with religion, unless you go to your church, and unless you subscribe to the teachings of the Bible as it relates to this specific issue.
Marriage is religious. Domestic agreement is legislative.
Everybody get it straight. Alright? Stop fighting. Stop judging (Let God). Take the word marriage off the legislative books. Replace the word with domestic agreements. Instead of issuing marriage licenses, the states will issue licenses for domestic agreements. If the time comes when the domestic partners want out of their contract/agreement, they sue to invalidate the contract.
Those folks who want an end to their “marriage” go to their church for a dispensation or divorce. What is so hard to figure out about this? It is so simple, isn’t it? BAN MARRIAGE as a function of legislative law. Leave that business to the religious institutions. And issue only domestic agreements for all.
Amen. (And this is not necessarily what I really, really think)
Go here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/will-divorce-prohibition-lead-togay-marriage