datamuse
Amalia and JoB put it very well.
You may well argue that marriage shouldn’t be a civic institution, but history shows that it was well before it was considered a religious sacrament—that mostly resulted from the local priest being the only person around for miles who could record that a marriage had occurred; in some places, it required nothing more than the couple declaring that they were married, no witnesses required.
You can argue that it shouldn’t be…but it is. I submit that taking a stand on that question in this context is…odd, to say the least, since it won’t do anything to change the legal structure of marriage overall, insofar as the granting of benefits and responsibilities that accrue once you sign the certificate are concerned.
Marriage, legal marriage, is a civil contract. That makes the ability to enter into it a civil right. A vote against R-74 is a vote to deny this right to a group of people for, from a legal perspective, no reason whatsoever. Frankly, it seems to me that if you get rid of marriage as a civil contract, and create other legal structures to take care of the rights and benefits that accrue upon marriage, you’re increasing the government’s involvement, not decreasing it. And if you’re going to try to dissolve those rights and benefits entirely…well…good luck with that.
Using that as justification for voting against R-74 strikes me as a jerk move, really.