Civil Unions

The Governor of Utah was rejected by a Republican club in Michigan for supporting civil unions. I think this is part of what is wrong with the Republican party lately. They're picking battles that they can't win and further alienating otherwise conservative voters. I've been debating with myself over the issue of civil unions and, so far, I see no (political) reason why the government shouldn't have them.

The issue of gay unions is a religious matter. The government should stay out of religious matters and not tell religions how they should be run or impose a nation-wide religion (the actual purpose of the idea of separation of church and state). However, the state does recognize marriage, which is a religious matter. As such, the government should not attempt to redefine marriage, but, since they've already recognized a union based on a religious matter, why shouldn't they recognize another type of union? To do otherwise would be advancing one religious view over another (or lack of religious view depending on your viewpoint).

Try to think about it as if the shoe were on the other foot. For example, say our viewpoint, the covenant of marriage was in the minority and the government has already recognized unions between gays. Our argument would be eerily similar to the arguments coming from the gay rights community.

This is not an endorsement of the gay lifestyle, but merely a way to hopefully get people to understand what one of the crucial roles of government is. That is, to protect the minority from mob rule. One day you might be in the minority and if you, while in the majority, have eroded the government's ability to protect the minority, you might not like the outcome.

Let me know what you think.