Last weekend I went to a wedding. It was sweet, small, simple, private; and unfortunately, not recognized by the state. The wedding was between two men who wanted to declare their love for eachother. After seeing the two grooms walking down the aisle and hearing them say their vows, it became very apparent that this wasn't about sex. In fact, there was nothing sexual about any part of the ceremony. There was no mention of sodomy, fellatio or even kissing. The only exception to kissing was the customary kiss between the wedding participants.

Instead, there was love. Love tends to be forgotten when it comes to relationships between gays. People forget that relationships are more than just sex even though they'll claim otherwise. Yet when someone mentions "gay" or "homosexual" their thoughts immediately gravitate towards sodomy and other sexual acts. This is more a reflection upon their own faults than it is on gays.

These two grooms were no strangers to love. The elder groom has two daughters and a granddaughter. All were present. He is no stranger to family and to caring.

Read at the wedding was 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

I'm not a Christian and I don't want to pretend to be. However, I agree with those verses. Even though there was love and family values present at the wedding, it is not being recognized by the state. And for what reason?

If their marriage should not be recognized by the state because of religious reasons, then does their religion not count? The First Amendment says that Congress (and by extension, government) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", but if marriage is to be considered a religious institution then why can't their marriage be recognized like hetereosexual marriages? Furthermore, if marriage is to be considered a religious institution, then what about all the areligious couples who seek state recognition of their marriages? Should that recognition not be granted? And, wouldn't such a refusal to grant recognition be a violation of the First Amendment?

However, if marriage is solely a social institution there would be no excuse for government favoring any two partners over any others. An even more important question, however, is should government have any role in marriage? Why should government care? Can't hospital visitation rights, income tax deductions, the right to claim one's partner's children as dependents, pension benefits, child adoption rights, child custody rights, retirement savings transferral rights, and the right not to testify against one's partner as is the case for straight couples (and the list goes on) be granted to gay partners in some way that has nothing to do with marriage?

Those who espouse the idea of families values do have one thing correct. Families are the backbone of healthy societies. Families need not consist of a man, his wife and their children. In modern families there is often a single parent raising several children. Many times, too, single parents also live with their own parents. In my case, I was raised by my grandparents. But, families need not have any children. Consider the case of a common-law marriage. This is when a man and a woman have been living together long enough that the state considers them married. They are a family, too, since they rely on eachother for care and support.

The group safety net provided by families helps tremendously when any member of the family finds herself in need. In single parent households, however, that safety net is non-existant. In poorer households this leads to people turning to the government for help. Things like food stamps, public housing and public aid are needed for providing safety nets to those who would otherwise have none. Promoting families would help promote family-provided safety nets and would help with reducing the need for social welfare programs.

Government should be promoting strong, healthy families. This can be done by giving those rights that gay couples desire from marriage to families. Government would not know about marriage, but only about who wishes to extend what rights to whom. Instead of requiring the listing of a spouse on tax forms, families could list dependents, "co-dependents" or "co-providers". I have not worked out the intricacies of such a system, but one would much more closely model today's society.

If such a system were to be put in place, there would be no question over gay marriage rights. Such questions would be pointless since government would not know whether two males living together were roommates or partners. To extend rights to gay couples beyond tax rights, families should be able to file papers with the local court house requesting such privileges be extended to individuals. Having government acknowledge families instead of marriage would provide social equality and extend religious freedoms.