The way I see this issue, it comes to a matter of religious joining of two lives versus the civil rights and arrangements of the joining of two lives.
Terminology edit
Just to prevent disagreement and misunderstanding, my definition of the following is:
- Wedding - the ceremony of the joining of two people. Period. Regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, looks, etc. It's just an excuse to have a party and be happy that two people have found happiness with each other.
- Marriage - the church-ordained act of spiritually joining two lives. Get it - a church, not a judge, not anyone but an ordained minister.
- Civil Union - the legal joining of two lives. This includes their properties, their credit, and all the good and bad that go along with it. This is entirely separate from the Marriage act. This is the civil act, not the spiritual act. There should be no debate about whether it is "legal" to join two people of the same sex in a civil union - it should be. However, the debate also should go the other way - the civil authorities have no right to perform marriages either.
"Justice of the Peace" Marriage edit
I have a bit of a problem with this phrase. A JOP marriage, by definition, is a civil union. Think about it - does the judge have any right or allowance to grant something that is historically the venue of the church?