Philip Newton's journal

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

I think I haven't thought about this in that much detail. I'd say that for me, marriage, family, and children are all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular.

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

I'm not sure. (What kind of legal benefits are we talking about, for one?)

Let's get back to that in a minute.

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

I haven't given this much thought again, but I think I wouldn't object much if the concept of marriage were confined to the churches. But I'm not sure what the point of a "civil union" would be, then?

I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept

*nods*

I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.

See, I think this is what it hinges on.

Why does the state have to recognise family units? What privileges do married couples have that non-married couples don't?

In Germany, you get a tax reduction if you're married. But other than that?

Unless it's things to do with children (e.g. I think a child born to unmarried parents is legally connected to the mother but not to the father, and unmarried couples can't adopt). But then that falls into the realm of "family" again, which to me is religious.

Or naming: partners often change their surname after marriage, and children born into a marriage get the surname of one of their parents, whereas children of unmarried parents take the surname of their mother AFAIK even if the parents consider themselves married but they aren't before the law.

I wouldn't like same-sex couples to be able to adopt children, and they can't have any of their own in the first place. (I would also want opposite-sex couples be married if they're going to be a couple and spend their life together, whether they have children or not.)

So I'm also not quite sure why the state wants to promote marriage, unless it's religious elements. Or perhaps something like promoting having children so that children are born so that the population doesn't die out (which wouldn't work for same-sex couples)—since I guess people usually prefer to be committed to one another before they'll go and have a child together. Or perhaps to promote families as a unit of a strong society?

What's in it for the state?

In summary: I think it's more a religious thing than a secular one and am not quite clear about the role of the state in all this.