In light of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage and the recent Supreme Court ruling, I would like to speak for the third side of the issue, which is widely ignored.
Why should the government recognize marriage at all? Why not keep marriage a religious institution and let churches set their own rules on it? If the government must recognize partnerships for government benefit purposes (and I would argue they don't), we could just change the legal term for marriage to something like "civil union."
The religious couples could then go to the church of their choice to be "married." The purpose of government is to protect the public from violence and fraud, not to legislate traditions, values or culture.
- Rudolph Mamula, Hammond