[1776 Reborn]

I understand what you are saying, and many people think that includes the state granting you the right to get married. When you break it down, the state grants you the equivolence of a legal business partnership. You are partners in law as far as owning property. If the state also would say you are legal partners in the care of your kids too, this would allow them to handle the legal issues through the courts without them taking on the religious role of granting you the right to get married, or conducting marriage ceremonies which is a religous function. Does that make sense to you? Can you see how this would keep gays from leaning on the government for a religious marriage license, or a marriage ceremony from a judge or justice of the peace? I feel this ceremonial part of getting married is the exclusive domain of churches, to conduct as their particular doctrine dictates. Thus, the government would grant legal partnerships, and churches would conduct marriage cerimonies over and above the government issued partnership to hetro sexual couples.

[RobbyS]

IMHO, gays are mad, in the sense that Paul uses the term in Romans. I don’t like the idea of letting mad men set the rules of our society. But as to marriage, I think it more than a contract, and as I said, an institution with a dignity separate from the dignity of the state, and the primary unit of civil society. I don’t want to see society dissolves into a collective of individuals—the literal atomization of our society.