A thought about marriage

I quote from Wikipedia:

In some countries, such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia, it is necessary to be married by government authority separately from any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one. In those cases, the marriage is usually legalized before the ceremony. Some jurisdictions allow civil marriages in circumstances which are notably not allowed by particular religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions.

The United States supposedly separates church and state. In the case of marriage, perhaps we should do so. I see no reason to believe that the state should be able to "sanctify" marriage (sanctify: Set apart as or declare holy; consecrate.or Make legitimate or binding by religious sanction.).

We also allow religious freedom. You can choose to have a union sanctified in a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist ceremony, or indeed by druids at Stonehenge. Indeed you can choose to have a union sanctified by a cult, here or abroad. However, I see no reason why a ceremony officiated by David Koresh of the Branch Dividians or Jim Jones of Jonestown should carry legal implications for the state. Why should they have the say as to how people qualify for special tax status or ability to inherit government pensions? 

Maybe if we separated the idea of secular status from religious status of couples some of the heat would go out of our debates about marriage.