What if marriage licenses were done away with and gays were allowed to marry by private institutions?

Whig Party: What if marriage licenses were done away with and gays were allowed to marry by private institutions?
Kind of a libertarian idea to abolish marriage licenses(as they are seen as a power grab by the state) and allow marriage to be a social contract between two people and not a public contract the government should be involved in.

I am not trying to argue that point one way or another. Let us pretend that this was the way it is right now.

If gays were married by a church or whatever else the same way straight people are, should they be honored?

I guess the question title was a bit misleading but hopefully enough get it.

Answers and Views:

Answer by El Tecolote
It’s all financial. Insurance companies and employers, for example, don’t want to have to extend benefits to gay partners. Those are the REAL opponents of gay marriage right there.

Answer by Huh
Government has no business in marriage to begin with.

Answer by Stephen
marriage is a state institution and unlikely to change as it has finincial implications.

Answer by Jay
Yes, you are correct. Do away with marriage licenses for everyone. Let people get married by whoever they deem appropriate.

However, do keep in mind that part of marriage deals with legal rights. The reason we have marriage licenses (OK, one of the reasons) is to make it clear in legal matters (e.g., inheritance, medical decisions) who is married to who. So, at the least, I can see value in having marriage registration.

Answer by bi-polar-itical
it is called civil unions.

Answer by Boo boo
Being married to a male or female makes no difference financially or it should not make any difference for insurance or employees. An individual is still an individual no matter sex. but what i’m getting from your question is that we have gay people that wants to get married so if they want that product why not monopolize the product then you have control of it.

Answer by grandma zaza
I got married because I wanted to have children with, and spend the rest of my life with my husband. I wish Liberals were as passionate about heterosexual marriage as they are about gay marriage. Marriage and family values could solve many of our problems.

What ever happened to “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby carriage?”

Now it’s first comes love then come the baby carriage, then comes some poor single mother trying to raise her children in poverty.

Answer by eileen4330
By definition Marriage is the recorded union between a man and a woman, by design it was necessary for the protection of women and children.
I understand the need for couples to seek the same” protections” as married folk regarding hospitals, medical decisions they should be listed as next of kin and to honor the wishes in a will for the right to inherit .
However…Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Answer by Tagg R
Then nobody could be upset about it as it would be each private institution’s decision on whether or not to conduct such marriages. All the government does is make marriage into a financial issue, and provide opportunities for fraud. Marriage should be about nothing but love, and privatizing it would make marriage a more rational union.

Answer by Disco Stu
I see no problem with gay people having civil unions. That said, they cannot be “married” becasue marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Just like a tree is defined as a plant with a wooden trunk with roots and leaves, so it wouldn’t make sense to call it a rock.

Answer by N
And Insurance, Inheritance, and Custody should be handled by whom?