You do have something, and your suggestion is sensible. Except where it won't work, because of the way the language is interwoven with the thought patterns of people.
Note that I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here. I support your position.
"Children born inside a civil union"=="Children born inside a marriage?"
"Sex within a civil union"=="pre-marital sex?"
the distinction between the religious and legal institutions get to keep "marriage" as a religious term and preserve the sanctity of that holy institution as they see fit, ---> My marriage is holier than your civil union?
There won't be any distinction in law, which is what the GLBT community rightly wants, but none of the psychological problems will go away.
I'd like to present in passing that my parents, according to the definition of "marriage" having only a religious context, are not married and they've never been married. They only have a civil union. Yet in Turkey that's called a "marriage", and if anything, the distinction is made for a religious wedding ceremony. (Here it seems to be the opposite, the distinction is made for a civil union.) Ministers cannot perform legal weddings in Turkey; there's no "ordained minister" institution, you have</> to go to a justice of peace or the assigned official of the local government. What you then (or immediately before) do and say and promise to in a room with a minister and two witnesses is only your business.
Here a justice-of-the-peace wedding still results in something everybody simply calls a marriage, but I do get the impression that folks who got married only civilly are more likely to mention that as a footnote to conversations, suggesting that the default is to assume religious marriage ... I wonder how accurate that impression is.
Also, I was reading recently about some country (I forget which ... France maybe??) where you're not allowed to have a religious marriage ceremony without first having gotten civilly married. (Not that I would suggest such State interference in religious rites here, but just as something your description brought to mind.)
(no subject)
Note that I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here. I support your position.
"Children born inside a civil union"=="Children born inside a marriage?"
"Sex within a civil union"=="pre-marital sex?"
the distinction between the religious and legal institutions get to keep "marriage" as a religious term and preserve the sanctity of that holy institution as they see fit, ---> My marriage is holier than your civil union?
There won't be any distinction in law, which is what the GLBT community rightly wants, but none of the psychological problems will go away.
I'd like to present in passing that my parents, according to the definition of "marriage" having only a religious context, are not married and they've never been married. They only have a civil union. Yet in Turkey that's called a "marriage", and if anything, the distinction is made for a religious wedding ceremony. (Here it seems to be the opposite, the distinction is made for a civil union.) Ministers cannot perform legal weddings in Turkey; there's no "ordained minister" institution, you have</> to go to a justice of peace or the assigned official of the local government. What you then (or immediately before) do and say and promise to in a room with a minister and two witnesses is only your business.
Re:
Also, I was reading recently about some country (I forget which ... France maybe??) where you're not allowed to have a religious marriage ceremony without first having gotten civilly married. (Not that I would suggest such State interference in religious rites here, but just as something your description brought to mind.)
Re:
(Or something like that. But it was France!)