Marriage Poll

brookelynpaisley

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:291047e5-16fc-4fbb-9aab-3e2527c183ce">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]polygamy is illegal for many logistical reasons, not just societal ones. for example: if a man is in the military and passes away and has 3 wives, who gets his pension and benefits? all of them? that gets expensive. what if the same man is in the hospital, who makes the decisions about his health care? who is entitled to his social security benefits? life insurance? should all the wives be able to be on his medical insurance (and what about the cost of that)? what about children? if he has 15 children should the "family" get all those tax deductions or if needed welfare benefits? it raises completely different issues than gay marriage.  as for the gay marriage thing, <strong>marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one</strong>, and people forget that. gays are not asking for churches to recognize their marriages (that's a different fight), only the government to. so the argument about the bible saying marriage is between a man and woman is completely irrelevant as the church is irrelevant in the argument.  in the end, people deserve to be happy imo and no one should have the right to tell people that they can't love or marry whomever they want that makes them happy. i mean isn't the pursuit of happiness part of the deceleration of independence and one of the foundations of the country?
Posted by psichick[/QUOTE]

But there are people that believe that marriage is also a religious union. You and I may not believe that, but there are people who do. While I don't agree with the stance of the people who believe this, I also feel it is just as unfair to push our beliefs on them as it is of them to bombard us with theirs.

ricksang

Meh Brooke, I have my strong opinions about some laws/human rights as well.

sarah0725

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:93f6cf02-3898-47b5-be0e-e406dd159aee">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : But there are people that believe that marriage is also a religious union. You and I may not believe that, but there are people who do. While I don't agree with the stance of the people who believe this, I also feel it is just as unfair to push our beliefs on them as it is of them to bombard us with theirs.
Posted by brookelynpaisley[/QUOTE]

To those people, I would present myself as Exhibit A and ask them to explain how my marriage is a religious union. I'm a hardcore atheist, and FI is basically an atheist who calls himself pagan. Our wedding is completely secular, and our readings will be from Shakespeare, Les Miserables, and a Star Wars novel. Our contract is with the state only, and so how is our marriage different from any same-sex couple who wants to get married? This I do not understand.

brookelynpaisley

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:64bf80ff-4237-4a0d-b73e-84f015f32f8c">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : To those people, I would present myself as Exhibit A and ask them to explain how my marriage is a religious union. I'm a hardcore atheist, and FI is basically an atheist who calls himself pagan. Our wedding is completely secular, and our readings will be from Shakespeare, Les Miserables, and a Star Wars novel. Our contract is with the state only, and so how is our marriage different from any same-sex couple who wants to get married? This I do not understand.
Posted by sarah0725[/QUOTE]

It's fine that it's not a religious union to you, but to them it is. You don't have to understand it or believe it as well for other people to. You want your beliefs respected, and so do they. Why does one side have to "win?" Just like a religious person can talk at me until they're blue in the face about saving me, I could talk to them endlessly about renouncing Jesus Christ and following nothing. Neither side is going to budge. I just choose to respect the fact that that's how they see things, and I have my own stance. I don't have to believe it to respect the fact someone else does.

cupcakesfrosting

My dad and I get into fights about this all the time. I am FOR gay marriage. He says he is FOR it, but won't fight / vote against Prop 8, until everyone is allowed to be married. Then he tries to bring up bisexuals, saying that until they are allowed to be married, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I honestly don't think he understands what a bisexual is, and it gets very frustrating, trying to explain the difference between someone who is bisexual, and someone who wants to be married to multiple people (Polygamy).

My dad is special.

sarah0725

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:fc89710a-cf00-4e4c-9fac-84c932555a6d">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : It's fine that it's not a religious union to you, but to them it is. You don't have to understand it or believe it as well for other people to. You want your beliefs respected, and so do they. Why does one side have to "win?" Just like a religious person can talk at me until they're blue in the face about saving me, I could talk to them endlessly about renouncing Jesus Christ and following nothing. Neither side is going to budge. I just choose to respect the fact that that's how they see things, and I have my own stance. I don't have to believe it to respect the fact someone else does.
Posted by brookelynpaisley[/QUOTE]

But see, I am very respectful of religions and what religious people believe. I wouldn't go around telling them that their marriages weren't religious, or whatever. I respect their right to believe what they want. But I don't think they should get to tell me what my marriage is or is not. It's kind of like how the Mormons keep baptizing our ancestors - I know my ancestors probably don't care, but it still pisses me off.

brookelynpaisley

It pisses me off, too, Sarah. I don't think anyone should press their religious - or non-religious, as the case may be - beliefs on another person. I hate being told that I'm going to hell because I haven't accepted Jesus. I avoid religious conversation with people at all costs, because I don't want to be made inferior. I also don't want to waste my breath and tell them I think they believe in magic and a fictional book written by people. It is unfortunate that people can't just let others live their lives without disrespecting their beliefs. This is why I don't vote for or against gay marriage - if I can't even decide why I have a conviction against it, what right do I have to press that belief on someone else? Even if I could say "here's why I believe it's wrong" I wouldn't vote against it, because I can at least respect the fact that it's how someone else wants to live and love, even if I don't agree.

ricksang

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:e3c373a5-6a20-47f2-9d68-7ca9de4e1ebb">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]My dad and I get into fights about this all the time. I am FOR gay marriage. He says he is FOR it, but won't fight / vote against Prop 8, until everyone is allowed to be married. Then he tries to bring up bisexuals, saying that until they are allowed to be married, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. I honestly don't think he understands what a bisexual is, and it gets very frustrating, trying to explain the difference between someone who is bisexual, and someone who wants to be married to multiple people (Polygamy). My dad is special.
Posted by cupcakesfrosting[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha this is funny!

quotequeen

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:88f4b168-3945-4a3f-9db4-fcd7878f5c90">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : I really don't think these are the same thing. My mom says this too, but I think the difference is that a lot of these other types of relationships are banned for other reasons that are good for a stable society. Incest: Causes increased risk of birth defects and other health problems, and also is often not an issue of "consenting", because in a parent-child situation there is coercion involved Adult-child: Again, not consenting adults. Adult-animal: Sheep can't give consent. Polyamory: Here you might actually have an argument. A lot of the bigamy laws had to do with trying to outlaw Mormonism anyway.
Posted by sarah0725[/QUOTE]

I left children, animals, and fruit out of my examples.  I am fine with the consent argument, though the age of consent is debatable, but I think that's a separate issue.

Why do you assume that a person can't consent to marry his or her parent, as long as he or she is of the age of consent?  You think that would only happen in a coercive situation?  And in the sibling context, you think that's a consent issue as well?  I would have to disagree with that.

The argument about birth defects is also problematic for several reasons.  (1) There are a lot of other reasons that a couple may be at risk for their children to have birth defects, and we don't forbid marriages in those circumstances.  We don't tell people with AIDS that they can't get married because their kids are at high risk for AIDS.  Etc.  (2)  One of the premises of the argument in favor of gay marriage is that marriage isn't just about having children.  People can get married even if they have no intent or desire to have children.  So why shouldn't a brother and sister, say, be allowed to marry each other, and just not have children?  (Or be able to adopt their children?)

Birdie1483

I'm completely for gay marriage.

I'm agnostic, so I have absolutely no religious influence on my opinion of what marriage should be. I really don't understand people who say that letting gay people marry will ruin the institution of marriage. The divorce rate is around 50% now. Don't they think THOSE people are screwing it up enough? And those that say every Tom Diick and Harry will marry each other just for benefits is seriously jacked up in the head. Heterosexual people can do that now and I don't see it as being an epidemic.


P.S. Hey TK, what is so wrong with the name Diick? What if I was talking about my uncle Diick?

cupcakesfrosting

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:32cb53d0-ff9c-4a24-abb9-ee24470d5359">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : Hahahaha this is funny!
Posted by ricksang[/QUOTE]

Ugh, Ricks, is SO frustrating though. We get into screaming matches, because I'm trying to explain the difference, and he says there is no difference. Lmao.

jasmineh7777

I am for gay marriage.

I'm Catholic, and I don't think my religion, or any other religion, has more claim to the term "marriage' than anyone else. My legal marriage was/is a separate union than the union solidified by my ceremony. The marriage license gave me legal rights. The ceremony was a spiritual/religious commitment.

I also don't think the government should mandate morality. We have freedom so long as we do not infringe on the freedom of others. Gay marriage does not in any way infringe on heterosexual marriage.

lil_miss_latinist

Lurker popping out, knowing that I'm going to be flamed.

I don't think the government should be in the business of "marriage." The government should be concerned with civil unions. My personal opinion is that all committed couples, hetero-, homo-, whatever, should be legally allowed to have all the rights we can give them; but it shouldn't be called a "marriage."

I personally believe that "marriage" is a religious institution. I know that my FI and I will care more about our religious ceremony, in our church, before our God, than the piece of paper the state gives us. We certainly want the rights of a "married" couple, but we don't think that we are more entitled to them because we are a heterosexual couple getting married in a church. My aunt and her partner deserve the same legal rights my FI and I do once we're "married."

If a couple wants a religious ceremony, that is totally their prerogative. My FI and I will be marrying in a church that is against homosexuality, which is an opinion our church is legally entitled to. If a church, which is not a governmental organization, does not want to "marry" a homosexual couple, I do not see a problem. That couple should still be allowed to "marry" though, whether in a secular ceremony or in a different religious ceremony. 

This is a post and run, since I'm cooking cinnamon rolls for a bake sale, but feel free to flame away. It won't hurt my feelings. I just wanted to throw my opinion out there.

Snippylynn

So... you're for civil unions between everyone.  Call it whatever title you want, it doesn't matter if your marriage is celebrated in a church.  The church has no legal right to create union.  That's the way the US works. 

I guess... I don't actually get your point, other than the religion, which again, has no legal standing among unions.

andy71781

lil miss - would it be ok in your eyes to have a church that thinks that black and white people should marry?  that its wrong to marry outside of your religion?

noelle24

I'm for gay marriage, and like other PP, I have yet to hear an argument against it that isn't flawed or bigoted. 

My basic stance is this:  Granting a marriage to a gay couple takes *nothing* away from heterosexual marriages.  Heterosexual couple's rights are not violated by this.  Defining a marriage as a man-woman union based on religious reasoning infringes on the rights of homosexual couples. 

If a religion wants to define marriage as being between a man and woman, that's their right.  And everyone has the right to decide what religious beliefs they hold and how that defines marriage.  Freedom of religion and all that jazz.  However, that religion does NOT have the right to define a marriage for everyone else in the country who may or may not hold the same beliefs. 

Civil unions but not "marriages" is a "separate but equal" policy.  Have we learned nothing from the civil rights movement that separate can never be "equal"? 

KatyRoseM

The idea of removing marriage from the legal discussion at all is an interesting one.  Many people seem to have a problem with the name, so if were were to all get legal civil unions, and churches, people and so on could marry separately that seems to fix the problem.  Marriage does not have to include a legal aspect, or a religious aspect.  By linking the two together we create problems.

And many religions do not allow intermarriage between races or religions, that is their right.  Its your right not to join them. 

Snippylynn

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:e3addcda-db6b-4b6f-bb3e-c4d9ca091383">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]The idea of removing marriage from the legal discussion at all is an interesting one.  Many people seem to have a problem with the name, so if were were to all get legal civil unions, and churches, people and so on could marry separately that seems to fix the problem.  Marriage does not have to include a legal aspect, or a religious aspect.  By linking the two together we create problems. And many religions do not allow intermarriage between races or religions, that is their right.  Its your right not to join them. 
Posted by KatyRoseM[/QUOTE]
This is true actually.  In most European countries you can have a church ceremony, that has to be followed by a legal ceremony, sometimes not even on the same day.  Or, you have only the legal ceremony. 

katiewhompus

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:e3addcda-db6b-4b6f-bb3e-c4d9ca091383">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]The idea of removing marriage from the legal discussion at all is an interesting one.  Many people seem to have a problem with the name, so if were were to all get legal civil unions, and churches, people and so on could marry separately that seems to fix the problem.  Marriage does not have to include a legal aspect, or a religious aspect.  By linking the two together we create problems. <strong>And many religions do not allow intermarriage between races or religions, that is their right.</strong>  Its your right not to join them. 
Posted by KatyRoseM[/QUOTE]

As do adoption agencies. If they aren't run by the state, then they can pretty much do whatever they want. Same as religious schools not allowing teachers/students who do not follow their religion.

Brooke I'm glad you posted. From the poll results I think quite a few people have similar thoughts.

TurtlesAllTheWayDown

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:134f903b-1afc-49e2-aa02-57c294ecaec8">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]So... you're for civil unions between everyone.  Call it whatever title you want, it doesn't matter if your marriage is celebrated in a church.  The church has no legal right to create union.  That's the way the US works.  I guess... I don't actually get your point, other than the religion, which again, has no legal standing among unions.
Posted by Snippylynn[/QUOTE]

<div>I can kind of get her point. I'm not religious and not having a religious ceremony, but if the government wants to call all legally recognized unions between a couple, gay or straight, "civil unions" I'm fine with that. Then churches or other religious denominations can retain the name "marriage" if the semantics are what they're so concerned about. As long as it's the same across the board - and civil unions aren't just reserved for gay couples, which is "separate but equal" - I'm good. </div>

katiewhompus

I think it would mean a reform of the term "civil union" though. My understanding is that a civil union does not offer the same legalities as a marriage does, and are not recognized in most states. So really the new civil union would just be the old marriage, and the new marriage would be something completely new.

shoegal715

I see banning gay marriage the same way I see slavery, Chinese head tax, and segregation.... .In 20 or 30 years, teachers will be telling their students that the government used to ban gay marriage, and everyone will be in shock and disbelief that there was actually a time were gays weren't allowed to marry. 

One day, people will look back to this point of time in history and be embarrassed of our country. 

deburnin

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:3bed453b-f3df-42e2-b6b6-59cf082c761f">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : I can kind of get her point. I'm not religious and not having a religious ceremony, but if the government wants to call all legally recognized unions between a couple, gay or straight, "civil unions" I'm fine with that. <strong>Then churches or other religious denominations can retain the name "marriage" if the semantics are what they're so concerned about. </strong>As long as it's the same across the board - and civil unions aren't just reserved for gay couples, which is "separate but equal" - I'm good. 
Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]

<div>What I don't get is why religion gets dibs on the term marriage when marriage predates it? Unless they invented the term. If anyone can track down who the first person to use the term marriage was I'd be much obliged. I've only been to get at far as that the first known use of the word was in the 14th century, but not who it was by or in what context.</div><div>
</div><div>PS- I'm glad to see that those in favor of gay marriage are in the majority of this poll. Slow changes, but it seems like the number of people in favor has definitely been growing over the past few years. It makes me very happy. :)</div>

lil_miss_latinist

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:134f903b-1afc-49e2-aa02-57c294ecaec8">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]So... you're for civil unions between everyone.  Call it whatever title you want, it doesn't matter if your marriage is celebrated in a church.  The church has no legal right to create union.  That's the way the US works.  I guess... I don't actually get your point, other than the religion, which again, has no legal standing among unions.
Posted by Snippylynn[/QUOTE]

<div>My point is that everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, should be legally unified by the state into a civil union, whether a simple courthouse affair or a secular ceremony presided over by a judge or other authorized figure, and that clergy should not be legally authorized to join a couple in legal union. Then, those who want a religious ceremony could have that in addition. I don't see how it's much different than applying for the marriage license prior to a wedding; instead of having a clergy member sign it at the religious ceremony, it would be legalized there, with a religious ceremony to follow. For me, even if my FI and I signed the papers and were legally "married" in the eyes of the state, I wouldn't consider myself married until the church/religious ceremony-- because that's what is important to me. If religion isn't important to you, you could have a ceremony at the same time as filling out the paperwork, or you could have a secular commitment ceremony after the legal process is complete.</div><div>
</div><div>As for a church that says interracial or interfaith couples should not marry? I don't personally agree, but that's the church's choice, freedom of religion and all that. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

noelle24

I also don't understand why churches should get a monopoly on the term "marriage".  There's too much ambiguity and variety about what rights a civil union does or does not bestow.  I know it's arguing semantics at this point, but I'd rather see the legal ceremony establish the marriage and then the religious ceremony can be called whatever it wants: sacrament, blessing, what-have-you.

lil_miss_latinist

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:a655134c-a3eb-44ee-8a42-61760dc31721">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Marriage Poll : What I don't get is why religion gets dibs on the term marriage when marriage predates it? Unless they invented the term. If anyone can track down who the first person to use the term marriage was I'd be much obliged. I've only been to get at far as that the first known use of the word was in the 14th century, but not who it was by or in what context. 
Posted by deburnin[/QUOTE]

<div>I'm a Classicist (person who studies Latin and Greek), so I have a fair knowledge of ancient history, at least in the Western world. It's hard to pinpoint the first use of the word "marriage," since the English we speak is a fairly new language (in the grand scheme of things). Certainly, the idea of marriage (a couple coming together from separate families to form a new family) predates organized religion; however, there was usually a spiritual aspect involved in marriage. In the Classical world, marriages were accompanied by sacrifices to the gods, and I believe this is true in many older ancient societies, as far as we have history. If you choose to date the first use of the word marriage to the 14th century, it would almost certainly have religious origin, whether Christian or otherwise.</div>

cupcakesfrosting

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:6e0fa0b5-373e-44c6-bdb4-cb9413738993">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]I also don't understand why churches should get a monopoly on the term "marriage".  There's too much ambiguity and variety about what rights a civil union does or does not bestow.  I know it's arguing semantics at this point, but I'd rather see the legal ceremony establish the marriage and then the religious ceremony can be called whatever it wants: sacrament, blessing, <strong>what-have-you</strong>.
Posted by noelle24[/QUOTE]

Can we call it a "What-Have-You"? Please?

[Deleted User]

thank you, deb and noelle. i'm sitting here with a dropped jaw wondering why lil miss thinks religion should have the market cornered on marriage. there's evidence of marriage in ancient mesopotamia for crying out loud.

also, brooke - i'm not sure i follow your argument here. all marriages have a legal component, and then some also have a religious component. it really doesn't matter whether someone thinks marriage is a religious endeavor. the legal component exists as a standalone and currently isn't available to everyone equally (in the u.s.). religion is completely irrelevant to the legal aspect of marriage.

brookelynpaisley

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_marriage-poll?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:68fd49a3-a359-4784-8918-2f086dd7ea33Post:f482bc5c-be68-4b2b-a087-69ee52b59a3a">Re: Marriage Poll</a>:
[QUOTE]thank you, deb and noelle. i'm sitting here with a dropped jaw wondering why lil miss thinks religion should have the market cornered on marriage. there's evidence of marriage in ancient mesopotamia for crying out loud. also, brooke - i'm not sure i follow your argument here. all marriages have a legal component, and then some also have a religious component. it really doesn't matter whether someone thinks marriage is a religious endeavor. the legal component exists as a standalone and currently isn't available to everyone equally (in the u.s.). religion is completely irrelevant to the legal aspect of marriage.
Posted by daffodil_jill[/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying. I'm not entirely sure I understand my argument. I acknowledge that I am conflicted. As I've tried to explain and am finding that I am failing at articulating, I can't pinpoint my aversion to gay marriage. I just try to acknowledge that I may not agree, but that I will neither support nor oppose gay marriage through voting. I don't feel right voting one way or the other on the issue (if given the chance) and so I choose to abstain. I understand and respect that people will not agree with how I choose to handle the issue.

noelle24

Honestly, I don't care about the history of "who-called-it-marriage-first".  Interesting academically? Yes.  Relevant to society now? No.   Today, marriage is viewed as more important and has more rights than civil unions.  People have been getting non-religious marriages for a good chunk of time.  Assigning the name "marriage" to religious ceremonies only would cause a huge ruckus (and what would you retroactively call all the secular marriages that have already been peformed?  That cute 60 year old couple is no longer married, they're "united"?). 

Honestly, I would view assigning "marriage" solely to religious ceremonies yet another way that religions are trying to oppress non-religious unions, even if only through rhetoric.  Like I said, I would have no problem with religions creating whatever name they wanted for marriage from here on out.  But the term "marriage" is too firmly entrenched in society to assign it to any one group over another at this point.