Perhaps we're approaching this debate from the wrong direction. Religious people assert that, in effect, they "own" marriage as a sacrament from God, and that's the basis of the desire to protect it.
Well, OK, let's concede that point, and take the obvious next step: Get the government out of the marriage business. Does it make sense that the government should provide a license to perform a religious ceremony?
Let the government register "civil unions" or "legal bonding" or whatever you want to call it, to satisfy the need for documentation when it comes to contracts, survivor's benefits, and so on. And if people want the additional marriage ceremony, they can go to their church for that. The government must provide that service equally to all, including non-heterosexual couples (or, dare I say it, multiples of any orientation?), but all churches would be perfectly free to set their own rules consistent with their beliefs.
End of conflict.
Current Events » in reply to re: He did
In defense of marriage