Prompted by Republicans, the House Judiciary Committee voted today 21-13 in a meeting to enact legislation that would strip Federal courts of the power to rule against the constitutionality of DOMA and order states to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in other states. This bill will move to the House floor next week.

Do you think it's wise to remove the checks and balances that the constitution gives our courts through this kind of legislation?

Removing checks and balances is always a dangerous undertaking. At the same time, it is understandable that something as legally all-encompassing as the legalities of the marriage contract need to find uniformity within the country.

Yet, I am at a loss what the best procedure should be. Some have suggested that marriage across the board (for heterosexual and homosexual couples) should be replaced with civil unions for all, while those who wish to enter into a traditional marriage (above and beyond a civil union) could do so at the church/synagogue/etc. of their choice, adding to the perceived separation of church and state.

Do you think this is an approach that might work?

I don't see why not. Although many marriages today ARE simply legal unions and were not done at a church or other place of worship. So I guess it would just be a matter of changing the rhetoric? I'm assuming that the rights/benefits/etc. would not change between a "civil union" done at the local courthouse and a "marriage" done legally AND in a church--just the name.

I mean, it's already true that a church can choose to perform a homosexual marriage or not (I was just at one at a Unitarian church today). So really the only issue is a legal one, not a religious one...hence I don't understand the opposition to gay marriage, really.

Although... a separation like that could get confusing--what do you call it, then? Do you say "hey, we're gonna get civil-unioned!" When someone introduces their spouse, how do you know if they're married, or just had a civil union and what term do you use if you don't know?

Hmmm...good question. From a religious point of view, I think that many a minister (or perhaps congregation, or maybe church, or denomination, or whatever else they might call themselves) fears that they will be legally forced to marry gays against their beliefs. I think this is in large part what is prompting the outcry. To a smaller extent I think it is the folks who have religious objections.

Considering Canadian developments, I believe the fear of the religionists has some basis in truth, it is just a question of what they will do with it. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Freedom of religion would guarantee them the freedom to refuse, yet would it protect them from repercussions, and should it?

What is prompting the outcry from us Christians is our calling to stand for righteousness. We are compelled by our faith to stand for what we believe. You see, since nations don't go to heaven or hell, then they are judged in this world rather than at the end of the age as individuals are. It is our belief that sin is it's own curse and that the more a nation either tolerates or condones it then the more our nation will be corrupted and decline because of it. Sin is it's own judgement. You may not agree with this but I just thought I'd clarify the Christian position since you were pondering it. And yes, freedom of religion DOES give us freedom to refuse. But more importantly, God compels us to. We still love gays, just as we love adulterers, etc. but we do not love what they do. That distinction is important. REAL Christians do not hate gays. Real Christians don't hate anyone.