too easy to fix

This topic has been raging for a few weeks now, so I guess it is time for me to weigh in. My solution for the “problem” posed by homosexual “marriages” is simple:
Get the government out of the marriage business in its entirety.
Marriages have millennia upon millennia of tradition indicating religious roots and heritage – leave it that way. Marriages could stay a matter of their respective religions, and abide by whatever rules those religions set for them. Should the respective churches/religions be ok with marrying homosexuals, more power to them. Should they not, more power to them. Each individual religion can decide whether or not they will honor another religion’s marriage, and they remain religiously binding however those religions dictate (divorces and annulments would remain within the religion, and dependent upon the religion’s whims and rules). However, religious marriages would hold no civil, governmental, or legal bearing or standing whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.
However, should the happily-married couple, or any other couple, desire governmental recognition, rights, and privileges, then they haul their happy little butts down to the courthouse, and get a civil union in addition to, or instead of, their religious marriage. This union carries with it all the current civil, governmental, and legal standings that come with marriages now, but exist entirely separate and disjoint from the religious aspect of marriages. If a man and a woman, not religiously married, want the same standing as some other couple currently religiously married and civilly unioned, then they can go to the courthouse as well. If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, want that same standing, off to the city hall with them. Said civil contract would cost a certain amount to forge, and significantly more to undo, and would have whatever safeguards and protections built into it as would be necessary to keep people from taking advantage of it.
And that would be that.
Those inclined could procure both a religious marriage and a civil union, or one, or the other. Churches could maintain their respective stances on homosexuality, the state could not discriminate (any more than it already does), homosexual couples could get the recognition they think they deserve, and people like me would not get offended at other people trying to redefine words.
Why is this so hard to work out? Could it be that acceptance is not the primary goal, but rather affirmation?
Nah, that would be too much like … an agenda.
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Pink Flamingo – Wordpress, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady’s World, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Faultline USA, Political Byline, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D’ITALIA, L.O.M.A., Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.