Since it's likely that any posts in the near future will revolve around Heathen City and promotion thereof in anticipation of the (hopefully) very near-future release, here's something unrelated, that I've been wanting to put down for a while, and recently found an opportunity to when a friend contacted me for my perspectives on marriage for an advanced class she was scheduled to teach. Also, I love run-on sentences and WILL NOT APOLOGIZE
The separation of church and state, in my view, is a good thing, but in many civilizations religion was the first true
civil order, offering synchronization among citizens and social services far beyond the scope of whatever ruling body officially held power.
Hospitals, orphanages, and other essential civil services were provided first by the church and later adopted by the state, as governing bodies became equipped to (and interested in) expanding their portfolio of services to their entire citizenry. The same applies for legal functions previously executed by the church, such as inheritance, birthright and in some cases adoption.
Governments have adopted these legal functions from the church in the same way that photography adopted portraiture from the art of painting, leaving behind the true core of any religion: exploring and acting upon each person's individual relationship with the Above. (To complete the painting metaphor, the removal of portraiture as a significant practice in painting left the pictorial arts with their true core: personal expression of the artist, exploring the personal experience of reality rather than merely producing a facsimile).
Marriage is one of these functions too, and in my view, it belongs with the state. The legally and justly elected establishment of a nation, constructed to represent the thoughts and priorities of its citizens, should be the arbiter of the definition of marriage.
The highest obligation of the law is to be
fair, the most significant portion of which is to be
consistent. The practice of legal precedent is the best example: a decision, once made, informs all future decisions on an identical decision.
In the issue of gay marriage, if gays are considered equals to straights and their relationships likewise, then 'marriage' is one of their rights -- as it is a civil institution governed by the law of the state.
However, for many people, the Church remains an important factor in their lives and to them, the institutions' ecclesiastic origins mean more than their current state-run incarnations. I am actually not at all offended when a Christian tells me they support legally-equal civil unions among gays, but that, to them, marriage is a sacrament under Christ, and that they don't like that word to be used.
I disagree with them, of course, but I can't at all fault them for their desire, and find it wholly reasonable in the context of their faith.
But as I am unaffiliated with any formal religion, while I'm on this Earth I am a citizen of my nation first. If there is to be a special term for a marriage under Christ that's separate from a marriage under the Law, I have no problem with that at all -- but it cannot be 'marriage'. That belongs to the state, which is to say, to
every citizen of the nation. The practice predates Judeo-Christian religion, and the modern incarnation of the Church has no more claim over it than the extinct faiths of pre-Roman Europeans.
They are of course more than welcome to invent a new word for
their view of marriage - and I actually don't mean that as any form of mockery. Though I do of course invite whimsical suggestions as to which word would be appropriate :)
Sometimes you hear about a project that's just so damn juicy, so damn succulent, that it'sutterly irresistible. You find yourself watering at the mouth for it even before it starts. That's how I felt when 
Ladies and gentlemen,