The current debate is over whether the definition of marriage should be expanded to refer to homosexual couples. But more and more I'm running into people who express this sentiment: get government out of the business of endorsing and regulating marriage and instead only provide the legal framework of civil unions. I'm wondering just how popular this view is.
Yah, it may be a war of terminology: six of one, half a dozen of the other. But the right framing of the role of government and marriage will lead to less arguments about why we extend certain benefits to married couples at all -- do we do it just because they raise families, or because of the relationship union itself? And should civil unions be extended to multiple people vs. should we legalize polygamy. Etc ...