That would be nice..........Unfortunately I don't ever see it happening.......

Sooooo......: Divide "marriage" into two parts: Part 1: civil union, recognized universally by the state; and Part 2: "marriage" performed by a church official, and recognized by the state as well as the churches. Will that make everyone happy?
If "marriage" needs "protection", just what is this bill supposed to do?

ummm, keep the evil gays from becoming equal under the law?

Lets not divide marriage, let's keep it the way it is!
And don’t force me to recognize something I feel should not be recognized.

Marriage is already in two parts....you cannot go to a church to be nmarried without a liscense, and the state recognizes it. Some churches restrict the vows, so folks go to a Justice of the Peace to provide a civil wedding.

One could be married at a JP, but a marriage of divorcess, when newly married, is not recognizwed by the "Church".

So, it is already in two parts, the objective would be to merely define it more accurately.
To repeat:

Sooooo......: Divide "marriage" into two parts: Part 1: civil union, recognized universally by the state; and Part 2: "marriage" performed by a church official, and recognized by the state as well as the churches. Will that make everyone happy?

If "marriage" needs "protection", just what is this bill supposed to do?