What they really should do is make it harder to get married and easier to get divorced.

I was referring to the term "marraige", not the religious ceremony....they are not mutually exclusive. I agree, no religious leader should be forced to perform a marraige ceremony he doesn't agree with, no less one that deviates from his religion. It is his/her right to refuse to do so.

However, I tend to disagree with the suggestion that the term "marraige" be replaced with the term "civil union" for people who don't fit the mold. Marraige is a legal union and can be a religious union, if one do so chooses. But, marraiges and marraige liscenses are both governed by the state, not the church/mosque/temple/etc. I believe any changes in the law to redefine the concept of "marraige" and who is elligible under the new term is not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional.

lol! I'm for it!

Sorry but can you spell it properly please?

There's no constitutional issue if the name is changed for everyone. As I said, I don't anticipate the majority of people changing the terminology that they use just because the government does. Civil Unions would not just be the term used for people who don't "fit the mold" by which I assume you mean same-sex couples. Currently marriage licenses are governed by the state, all I'm suggesting is changing the name to union licenses or civil union licenses.

This isn't redefining the concept of marriage, it is an attempt to keep people who feel that marriage is a religious rite from preventing same-sex marriages on those grounds. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be necessary, but just because this isn't the best solution doesn't mean it isn't a viable one. And many of the "best" solutions are just not going to happen any time soon.

Same sex couples would be able to get married in any sect that allowed it just as they are today. However, with or without that they would be afforded the civil recognition and the rights of any married couple today.

Can't anyone commit to anything nowadays?

Marriage is a life-long commitment. If you don't think you can handle it, then don't get married. Understandbly things can happen over time (no one can predict the future), and the relationship can change making divorce necessary. But so many people nowadays seem to enter into marriage with such a blase attitude.

I made a life-long vow to my husband in front of my closest family and friends. And I intend to uphold those vows. I don't need some government telling me my marriage has expired. I doubt that would ever happen here [Canada] though since everyone is allowed to marry.

There's the conflict. A marriage liscence is a legal document, and I see a conflict with the government changing the letter of the Law because one may feel that it is a religious rite. It is a constituional issue as far as the seperation of church and state is concerned. It can also raise questions/concerns of federalism, since marriage laws are governed by the state. I guess if enough people petitioned the leaders in your state about changing all marriages liscences to civil union liscences, that would only change it your state. The federal government would have no way to impose that change in the entire U.S. without overpowering states rights.

Same sex couples can get married in any state that allows it. If they can find a religious institution in that state to perform the actual ceremony, I guess that's an added bonus for them. But a religious ceremony is not necessary for ANY marriage. One can just as easily have the Justice of the Peace perform it in Court or just sign the papers and oaths and go on about their day. Then, there's also Vegas.

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error....hate to think my years in school were a total waste...lol!

looks like I like to spell license wrong too....oh, well.