SOCIAL: Gay Marriage

I am against gay marriage. I am not, however, in support of government saying who can and cannot be married, or telling people that they have to recognize that bond. Marriage is a religious, moral, social institution, one that the government did not create, and cannot legitimately regulate. It is between a couple and their church. I really don�t see a civil court having much trouble determining cohabitation and responsibility of bonded couples.

We should be focusing on why the states have the power to issue marriage licenses to anyone. I personally don�t care for the fact that I had to ask permission from the state in order to validate a religious ceremony I performed with my wife.

Lets stop issuing the "permission to perform an ancient religious ceremony" license they call a marriage certificate all together.

KJ, seperate but equal doesn't work. We tried it in the past. But if the only thing you don't like is it being called marrige, then I guess call it civil union or whatever. But again, seperate but equal does not work.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
KJ, seperate but equal doesn't work. We tried it in the past. But if the only thing you don't like is it being called marrige, then I guess call it civil union or whatever. But again, seperate but equal does not work.

You are misrepresenting "seperate but equal". That policy was the physical seperation of white and black people.

This would be more akin to the little box you check for your taxes, white and black.

The catagories are seperate, not the people, the rights, the drinking fountains, the bus seats or any of the other freedoms homosexuals already enjoy.

They would on the other hand get the rights. Much like when blacks were actually given the rights whites enjoyed they were not called white, they remained black.

I think it works best because it allows gay marriages to retain their own pride and it keeps the religious right at bay.

Works for everyone. Isn't that what we are looking for?