Government: Get out of the "marriage" business!

My wife and I have two "marriage" licenses. One was issued by the State of California through the County of Los Angeles, and the other was issued by the church where we were members at the time we were married. Only one of those "marriage licenses" hang on a wall in our home. It is the one issued by the church. The former, issued by the government, is a legal document that binds us in a contractural agreement, in the eyes of the government. The latter is a document that binds us in a contractural agreement under the eyes of God, certifying we were married according to our Christian faith in a Christian house of worship. These are two, separate but in their own ways each very important, documents. One is a "civil union" contract issued by a government agency that determines how our estate, our financial and personal holdings, ought to be divided up in case our marriage should end through our choice or passed along should and when one of us should die. It is a very necessary document. The other is a "marriage" issued by a church, signifying that a "marriage" ceremony was conducted by an ordained man or woman of the cloth and that the two of us, in a place of worship, vowed our allegience to one another in the name of God in the House of the Lord. This is also a necessary document.

My issue is not with either of these documents, but with the name that is on each of the documents. The government-issued document should state "civil union) and the other should state "marriage."

The government ought not and should not be involved in the "marriage" process. That should be under the realm of churches and other places of worship and should only be issued on a religous basis. The government should and must be involved in the "civil union" process, because it ensures that the financial and personal property earned and/or gained during the term of the "civil union" be divided properly and legally. This government-issued "civil union contract" is thus important and vital in the name of fairness.

My suggestion is that the government get completely out of the "marriage" business and only issue "civil union" licenses to couples that want to become legally linked. The "marriage" licenses would thus only be issued by churches and other religious organizations to signify couples that want to become linked in the eyes of God.

This would remove any debate over same-sex marriages, as the government would only be involved in "civil union" contracts between two legal adults. This contract would identify the couple as Partner No. 1 and Partner No. 2 and, with no mention of God whatsoever (complete separation of church and state) would regulate how the property gained and/or acquired during the terms of the contract will be divided upon the termination of the contract, either by divorce or death. Separate, government-issued legal documents could determine end-of-life decisions and other legal matters relating to a "civil union."

If the couple also wanted to be married in a religious ceremony, then they could work out those arrangements with the church and/or ordained minister, pastor or other religious figure they desire and have a "marriage" ceremony performed under the eyes of God.

In this way, if a church or a religious leader did not want to conduct non-traditional "marriages," he or she would not have to face a lawsuit or other legal action. This would be a "pro-choice" matter for the particular clergy or particular church or other religious institution.