Hi Austin

Thank you for your comment at Provoketive Magazine (http://provoketive.com). We’re creating a space of rich conversation about life, faith, justice and culture without judgment. Our desire is to provoke the reader’s imagination through conversation and open up spaces of dialogue, learning, and hope.  We want to invite you to come back soon and continue to participate in the conversation. 

Thank you,
Jonathan Brink
Provoketive Magazine

You posted the following comment:
---------------------------------
I'd like to bring up a different, but related point.

You started this off with a quote by Michelle Bachman and the political environment in which the discussion of "Gay" Marriage that revolves in that sphere (or marriage equality, I get the point). I'd like to question why we put marriage in the civil sphere at all? It seems to me that the most effective response to the marriage debate is to look at the history of marriage. It seems to me that institutionalizing marriage has caused many more problems than it solves. Going back to the institution of the Church of England, the interracial marriage debate in the last century in the US, and now the marriage equality debate, it seems that the debate around the legalization or the legal institution of marriage has been very damaging. Granted, with the foundation of the Church of England, there was more going into it than merely the Pope's refusal to annul Henry's marriage, but that was a major point. Also, it was a religious institution that was doing this, but primarily for political reasons (he was being held by the Holy Roman Emporer, uncle to Catharine - Henry's first wife).

Regardless, it seems completely inappropriate to me that our politicians are setting the agenda on an instution that was founded in the religious arena. Why are we resorting to political means to authorize marriage of any type. It seems to me, that for those of us who view marriage as primarily a religious institution should be boldly declaring that the government has no authority to define/restrict/promote/whatever marriage. That the Church is the only appropriate institution to define it, and thereby, that the religious institution of marriage is protected by the religious institution of the Church.

If the government views long-term, stable relationships as healthy and beneficial to the community, then let them create a legal institution that they can protect and define, just don't call it marriage - the term itself is and has always been too laden for politics. 

I am regularly frustrated that this is primarily a political debate. Especially because it usually turns to religious issues (as can be shown in the comment string).