This confluence of religion and politics was especially prominent in the recent gay marriage debate.
Really, the entire issue revolves around the word "marriage" having a dual meaning in a religious sense and a (government) civil contract sense. When the government "redefines" civil marriage (e.g. with the inclusion of interracial couples), religious organizations can still retain their own definitions of marriage.
If the government had originally had all couples register as "civil unions" and optionally marry in churches, then surprisingly this debate may never have occurred -- it is purely semantical.
At the popular level, yes. But there are other concerns, like the practical basis of marriage rights for procreation and that it is contrary to the American experiment to mandate gay marriage for all states.
1. There is no practical basis of marriage rights for procreation. This is proved by the prevelance of men and women who remain married without having children, and the vast numbers of unmarried parents.
2. I wish that you would define what you mean by "contrary to the American experiment." No one is advocating gay marriage for all states. Many people are demanding their own state government recognize civil marriage as distinct from religious marriage, and that all citizens have equal rights to civil marriage.
If 1 is true, then marriage should no longer have special status in our laws. So, instead of trying to get the government to recognize gay marriage, the special rights for marriage should be largely done away with, or made dependent on actually having children.
For 2 I am wrong and uninformed then. If it is only a state by state issue and it is supported by the majority of a state, then I don't see a problem.
Really, the entire issue revolves around the word "marriage" having a dual meaning in a religious sense and a (government) civil contract sense. When the government "redefines" civil marriage (e.g. with the inclusion of interracial couples), religious organizations can still retain their own definitions of marriage.
If the government had originally had all couples register as "civil unions" and optionally marry in churches, then surprisingly this debate may never have occurred -- it is purely semantical.