Changes

Marriage Privatization is an alternative perspective on the [[same-sex marriage]] issue. The vast majority of supporters are [[libertarian]]-leaning in terms of their opinions. <ref> [http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat Libertarian Party press release on marriage]</ref>. Supporters of marriage privatization are not necessarily in personal support of same-sex marriage; however, they feel the government should play no role in defining marriage in general.  

Marriage Privatization is an alternative perspective on the [[same-sex marriage]] issue. The vast majority of supporters are [[libertarian]]-leaning in terms of their opinions.<ref>[http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat Libertarian Party press release on marriage]</ref> Supporters of marriage privatization are not necessarily in personal support of same-sex marriage; however, they feel the government should play no role in defining marriage in general.  

Supporters of marriage privatization believe that any two (or, according to some supporters [[polygamy|more than two]]) consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal relationship which affords all the legal benefits currently provided to married couples. However, this would not be referred to as "marriage". Some advocates would refer to this partnership as "[[civil union]]s" regardless of whether the couple was same-sex or opposite-sex. <ref> http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties </ref>. Others would use a neutral term that has not previously been held to refer to either type of couple (for instance "civil partnership").  

Supporters of marriage privatization believe that any two (or, according to some supporters [[polygamy|more than two]]) consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal relationship which affords all the legal benefits currently provided to married couples. However, this would not be referred to as "marriage". Some advocates would refer to this partnership as "[[civil union]]s" regardless of whether the couple was same-sex or opposite-sex.<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties</ref> Others would use a neutral term that has not previously been held to refer to either type of couple (for instance "civil partnership").  

It would then be left up to [[church]]es (or other religious bodies) and the beliefs of individuals to determine what is or isn't "marriage." For instance, the [[Catholic Church]], which has always been strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, could refuse to recognize the couple's relationship as anything more than signatures on paper and would face no consequences or sanctions for doing so. Since Catholics also have very strict beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage, couples could choose to get married in Church. However, this would have no legal impact, only a religious one. Additionally, the Church would still be able to perform the marriage rituals exclusively for heterosexual couples. They would not be forced to perform same-sex weddings, nor would any other religious institution. Non-religious or interfaith couples who desire a formal marriage ceremony could still get married by a [[justice of the peace]] in the same way they do now (except that there would likely be no licensing requirement for JOPs). However, once again, this would be ceremonial only and would have no legal impact.  

It would then be left up to [[church]]es (or other religious bodies) and the beliefs of individuals to determine what is or isn't "marriage." For instance, the [[Catholic Church]], which has always been strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, could refuse to recognize the couple's relationship as anything more than signatures on paper and would face no consequences or sanctions for doing so. Since Catholics also have very strict beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage, couples could choose to get married in Church. However, this would have no legal impact, only a religious one. Additionally, the Church would still be able to perform the marriage rituals exclusively for heterosexual couples. They would not be forced to perform same-sex weddings, nor would any other religious institution. Non-religious or interfaith couples who desire a formal marriage ceremony could still get married by a [[justice of the peace]] in the same way they do now (except that there would likely be no licensing requirement for JOPs). However, once again, this would be ceremonial only and would have no legal impact.