However, fundamentally, this argument stopped being a religious argument when marriages moved into the civil realm. When civil marriage licenses were issued by state and federal entities, the equation changed, and when rights such as next-of-kin entered the picture over time, being able to draw the line at whether this is a strictly religious or civil argument became a pretty fuzzy one, in my opinion.

I see where you are coming from. I am not near California, but I know someone near San Fransisco, and I have been following Prop 8 news. I agree with you that people did a lot of piggybacking of their ideas — on both sides. However, I disagree that that marriage is a religious institution, because it stopped being strictly one about 200 years ago. All arguments around Prop 8-like items should first understand this fundamental definition of civil marriage law.

The moral standards of a community are what define the limits of what a community will tolerate. The community writes down those limits in the form of law.

My basic rule is if both parties are willing, and no third party’s rights are infracted in any way, people should be free to do what ever they want.

And – as an aside – Laws are not morals. Laws are contracts of behavior agreed upon between groups of people and their government, with established consequences. Morals of groups might guide the creation of laws, however, they are not core driver. If that was the case, corporate law would be guided by higher ideals then pure profit.

The government’s JOB is to legislate morality. Laws are the extension of our judgment as a society as to what we can and cannot accept. What we can and cannot accept as a society is our collective moral consciousness.

Laws are, at their very core, morals.

I agree that it is not the government’s job to tell religion what to do. The government has no place in faith, but legislating against crimes (thefts, arsons, rapes, etc) IS in fact, legislating morality. There are some countries where it is perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife.

That choice is made by the moral standards of the society that laws are made by.

Who are we to tell a gay couple that have lived together for 30 years that one cannot make medical choices for the other, or even be told what is going on by their doctor, because some voters are afraid of “marriage getting diluted”?

There is a legal separation of church and state. By the government trying to legislate morality, that line is blurred. At this point, the government is telling priests who they can and cannot marry. It’s also telling it’s citizens that they do not have a choice in civil unions – that the government can tell them who and who not to “union” with.