Bingowings said:

In which case to avoid dragging the subjective moral values of some into the domestic arrangements of others wouldn't it be better to abolish civil marriage altogether and just have civil partnerships for anyone regardless of their sexual intensions, religious affiliation or lack of said?

That way a heterosexual couple of the Roman Catholic persuasion could have a church wedding and sign a civil document of union which is the same as the one a homosexual couple would sign if they announced their union a meeting of the Society Of Friends or at a ceremony of their own design etc.

That way the marriage would be a ceremonial rite of choice subject to whatever moral stance the organisation performing it may hold and civil union would a legal/economic contract with the state.

Should divorce be difficult to obtain, or just let the couple get a piece of paper notarized? There is a law of unintended consequences. People will change their behavior if marriage is a more casual union under the law.

You express theoretical support of bestial marriage and apparently do support polygamous and incestuous marriage. Granted you are not endorsing the underlying behaviors. I appreciate where you're coming from on a philosophical level and I disagree. This is the kind of argument that furthers fears that gay marriage is about tearing traditional society asunder, rather than an issue of justice and liberty. I think a society should have a strong moral compass and be able to express their morality in their governance. A constitution and laws can help ensure personal liberty, even if a minority feels offended by a moral view of the majority.

@Duracell, I did mean vegetable vegetables.