Marriage should be defined as a union between?

Perhaps the options should read:

Two People Under God

Two People Under Law

Two People Under God/Law

Multiple People Under God

Multiple People Under Law

Multiple People Under God/Law

Is it possible to caveat a homo/heterosexual yay or nay?

I'm curious about the votes that don't include law. Are you saying that after the wedding, the only people who acknowledge your union are the people in attendance and God? You don't feel that a society should acknowledge your union? I find that odd.

So ... it appears the common consensus is for heterosexual, monogamous marriage under both God and law. Since religion and legal recognition is important to the omninerd crowd I have a question:

Will you recognize the marriages from other political / religious groups outside of your own society that emigrates to your land? Say a European union of homosexual men? Or an Eastern polygamous union?

Another question for those of you choosing "A man and woman under law." If you don't factor God into the equation, then why do you say that homosexual marriages are wrong? What is your reasoning for saying that two men who already live together can't be acknowledged by the state and receive the benefits afforded to other married couples? Something must define "wrong" for you. If not God, what? I'd love to hear this explanation.

I think a very important and missing element to this poll question is how this definition of marriage is to be used. Is this:

a) a semantic discussion of the definition in everyday parlance?

b) a religious discussion of who should be allowed nuptial rights under God? Or,

c) A legal discussion of who should be recognized for marriage benefits within our government?

As it is, I think much of the discussion surrounds disagreement of what definition is under discussion. So, I submit definitions for each of these questions.

In everyday parlance, I would define marriage as Wordnet does, "The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)." This does not restrict the genders of the individuals married nor does it define the level of exclusivity of that marriage. This essentially becomes a personnel definition for those involved. If two people claim that they share this level of a relationship together, there doesn't seem to be any reason to deny them the use of this word to describe that relationship, be it homosexual, bigamous, or whatever.

In terms of a religious definition, this would quite obviously fall to the doctrine or dogma of your particular church. Church leaders under their interpretation of God's direction define who can be married within their church and should continue to do so. Most Christians would agree that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman with their union made under God by a faithful leader of their church.

The sticky part comes with c), defining marriage within the law, because, as a society--nay, as a government--we claim to not endorse one certain religion. A Muslim has just as many rights to practice her religion as a Jew, Christian, or Wiccan, as long as she doesn’t infringe on the rights of those others. Nevertheless, our legal definition of 'marriage' seems to be based in very Christian beliefs -- only allowing a single man and woman to marry. Interestingly, our laws don't require that this Christian definition of marriage be carried out in a Christian way. Secular judges and even Elvis impersonators can marry two atheists, as long as they are a man and woman and it creates a Christian-looking marriage, never mind whether it’s actually under Christian God or not. For, requiring a Christian God's involvement would be outwardly endorsing that religion.

For this reason, I don't know how our secular government logically justifies this definition. Politically, it is based in the Christian voting power of the populace. But as a secular government, we should look to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these are truly protected by this definition then so be it. I am just not aware of this evidence. However, in lieu of this evidence, I have to suggest that the government should accept the definition of marriage as I’ve suggested in everyday parlance (above) or abandon its recognition of marriage all together. For simplicity, I prefer the latter.

Marriage is for most a religious event. The government does not offer any benefits for the confirmation of a Catholic schoolboy, why does it offer benefits to those who undergo this other sacrament? And why only certain unions? The legal considerations now associated with marriage could be duplicated in legal contracts such as wills for inheritances and living wills for medical care decisions. Equal taxation could be returned to all members of society single or ‘married.’

While this view is controversial, and politically untenable, only a national religion could truly justify our current practices of legally recognizing only certain marriages. While most people are comfortable in this current contradiction, it doesn’t seem to make logical sense.