And I tried to think of examples from my comment last night, and I couldn’t. So maybe I’m wrong. It just seems like that might be the case, but who knows?

I do think it is only a matter of time, but I could be wrong. At the moment, I think the trend is to accept almost anything if it gets harped on enough by people who care about it a lot for a long enough time. Not necessarily a bad thing in many instances.

Unrelated: If I ever go to law school, I need to interview Momalicious, because she has apparently been in the field that I would want to practice.

That way the state can protect its legitimate state interest in encouraging happy, stable, long-term husband-wife relationships and, at the same time, give protection and basic rights to partnerships in which one partner can be victimized regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why not both?

Churches want the word marriage not to include gay people, and imply an implicit blessing by the state on homosexual relationships.

Gay people want the word to include them, and by including them imply an implicit blessing by the state on their relationships as legitimate.

For example, on November 5th, 2008 Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.” So, what are we “protecting”?? The WORD marriage.

Thank goodness for the statutes and case law that has arisen from domestic relations laws! Our children and our society are better because of them!!!

Additionally, the argument is that the churches should keep “marriage” separate and distinct & that partnership/property/custody/tax etc. benefits should be conferred an any couple seeking them. Hence, the property interests of these abused women (that have been modified in modern history to protect women’s contributions— like in 1985 when the court ruled that a woman who had supported her husband through school had an interest in his resulting degree as an asset etc.) you mention would still be protected.

Churches have no power to order people to do anything, the state does. It is wholely because of that state power that the recognition of both the husband and wife contributions in a marriage are equal – financially and otherwise. When I represented women who had put their husbands through school, stayed home and nurtured small children and made huge career sacrifices for the good of the family, it was absolutely life-saving for these women to have the power of the law to protect their rights and their children and to prevent abuses.

A “churches-only” marriage rule would set back womens’ rights hundreds of years – returning to a society where women and children are at the mercy of men. If you are married to a Saint like Jim Kelly, that’s great. If you marry someone who turns out to be a narcissistic monster, that’s not too great.