No, I agree with mdudlik, the separation of church and state needs to be re-inforced. Marriage shouldn't be a federal contract, and a civil union should apply to straight and gay unions cause it is a legal contract for certain benefits (though a lot of them are arguably not the governments business to provide, some are QUITE legit.)

The separation is not only to protect from theocracy, but also to protect churches from being corrupted by politics. It's protects both ways.

I also think In God We Trust (1956) and One nation "under god" (1954) should be removed. They were added during a time when people feared for their lives, fear mongering was at its peak (before now) and the cold war affected the judgment and concerns of the country, where these ideas could propagate because people were too scared to protest, and seem like communists (the same is true of Iraq and the fear of seeming "un-american)

I think marriage, i.e. church ordained with government benefits, should be rethought. The idea of marriage, of a church approving of a marriage, can be a separate matter. The idea of civil unions, that is, governments recognizing a couple as such, and extending all the benefits of such a title appropriately, makes more sense, then allowing church groups decide who should/shouldn't be seen as equals in this democracy. I might be wrong, but you are suggesting no benefits/government involvement in marriage?

I definetley agree that all marriages straight or gay, shouldn't be a government contract, the word in itself makes it a political issue as long as people want it to be a government contract. All LEGAL unions have LEGAL names makes more sense, and all spiritual/personal unions being defined and enjoyed by the persons involved makes sense as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with that one, I've been saying marriage shouldn't exist in the first place for years.