Replies

I haven't posted in a long while but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

I really don't see why people are so up-set over this. I mean marriage is just a civil contract between 2 individuals regardless of their sex. A man and a woman exchanging their vows in a church before God and family is the traditional marriage. And I doubt that will change.

What this basically boils down to is the separation of church and state. Marriage law in this country is dictated by man's interpretation of what the bible states is a marriage: one man one woman. If we are to amend the constitution why not say that marriage has to be between a white man and a white woman or black man and black woman only -- no interracial marriages. Men can't marry Asian or Latin woman. And women can't marry Latin men or any other outside their race -- sounds a bit like Hitler but that's the can of worms that will be opened if this goes far enough. And who will suffer? Republicans. Why? Because a larger majority believe that republicans are racist, homophobic bigots. So, if you mandate that marriage is only between a man and woman based on God's law then the constitution will have to state that a legal marriage can only take place in a church -- who's going to win that argument?

The solution is to just let the issue alone. If Adam wants to have a legal, binding civil contract with Steve like John and Mary -- what's the harm? After all, in the eyes of the courts it's just a contract. And those people who wish to marry in a church can still do so, and the world will still turn and the sun will still shine.

It's like the Catholic church saying that a catholic man and woman who aren't married in a catholic church aren't married in the eyes of the church; but the courts say different because they have entered into a civil contract that is legal and binding.

I think the issue would be a lot different if Gay's were demanding to be married in churches. And my stance would be different. But as it stands Gay man and women have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same as any other American. Whether you like it or not is your own personal choice.

And for those who will rip me apart and call me names -- don't bother as I'm not so sensitive I can't take a little name calling :-)

"What this basically boils down to is the separation of church and state."

Incorrect. The nation as a whole has to address the issue of what is best for society. It seems clear to me that legalizing gay marriage is not in the best interests of society as a whole. But regardless of that, I do believe there needs to be a nationally recognized definition of marriage for purely legal reasons (e.g. insurance, taxes) as well as for determining what our societal expectations are. By that last phrase, I mean, are we going to allow polygamy? What about marriage between a person and an animal? I think a line needs to be drawn.