[olalonde]

What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.

[OJFord]

Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries.

The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.

Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.

[jefftk]

    since some sort of legal status is required for many
    purposes in most countries

The idea here is that you get rid of those "many purposes" and treat a married couple like any other people who have decided to spend their lives together.

[vasilipupkin]

that is what "married" means. Two people who have entered into a legal contract to spend their lives together and bear certain responsibilities with respect to each other and those in their custody. The religious interpretation of what it means is irrelevant for legal purposes in the US

[giaour]

You're right; I misunderstood the original question.

[fineman]

I see it more as either end (no government involvement, marriage is religious only or no church involvement, marriage is civil only) would satisfy the OP. The middle-ground is the actual opposite to both ends, in that marriage isn't secular or optional.

I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.