If the states use christian views to define marriage between a man and woman, does that definition impede on individuals who do not believe in the Cristian religion?
136171
Well, if there is one thing our government does right it is go with the mass mentality. Since the major religion is Christianity then they go with it. Putting everyone under the same heading. You can bet that if there were a more popular bandwagon (not that religion is a bandwagon, don't get me wrong) they would be on that too, in a second.\nUnfortunately for the people that aren't Christian, they are put under our law. Apparently their beliefs don't "count".\nI'm sure no government can please everyone all the time but it is not fair to not take into account the many other religious beliefs. \nIn a way it's like a weird form of conversion. "If you don't believe what we believe we will just make it illegal for you to practice what you believe." "I'm sorry, pursuit of happiness? You must be thinking of some other country."
565518
I think he believes strongly in the institution of marriage, but I also think he's a huge supporter of states rights, and this clearly defies that.  I think he's pandering to the christian right and their money, and I would imagine he's pretty annoyed that this is on the table right now when there's other things going on.
283715
Hola your my new christian hero.\n\nYour right as a non-theist I can get married.  But if I was religious and gay I would not be allowed.  \n\nThe only negative I see is that straight people could use this for tax breaks when they are not intrested in finding a wife/husban.
559755
No it shouldn't. (only in my own personal belief and opinion)\n\nBut who should decided on what marriage really is?\nA. Church\nB. Court/Justice of the Peace\nC. Govournment\nD. In your eyes...love is love
425017
Exactly.  If it's not a Religion, then it can not be protected under  Freedom of Religion.  I can't claim my relationship with my husband is protected under that.  Or any of my Relationships. \n\nThey really should be careful about how they represent their religion, because just as easily as the Christian Politicians have twisted the laws to cover only the mainstream religions in many cases, they may soon find it being done to their own to the same extent.
420632
Biblically, Yes.\n\nI married an agnostic, Im a Christian, so personally, I dont care.
67433
No.  If pseudo-religious zealots so disapprove of gay marriage then they should probably abstain from marrying people of their same genders.  That's all the power they should have under the law or otherwise--the power to manage their own behavior and the behavior of the minor children.  Any further commitment by the federal government is an  unconstitutional involvement in organized religion.\n\nAnd by the way, I happen to be a straight man who believes in protecting privacy from religious posers.
92770
Personally, I don't believe it will damage our society. Most of the ppl in the world are very religious and believe marriage should just be between a man and a woman. But we are human beings just like them, except we love a person of the same gender. Theirs nothing different between us except that. Everyone has their own beliefs on this issue. I just say you can't help who you fall in love with!!! Been with my gf for 2 yrs now!!! And we're still goin!!
405563
some religions may not accept such beliefs.
608795
Yes, the religous folk do seem very contradictory at times. Personally, I believe that a lot "religious people" (Think Dana Carvey as the Church Lady) miss the point of their beliefs. And that is acceptance. The way gay marriage is being protrayed in the media is almost laughable if it weren't true. Them not being allowed to get married is just another form of discrimination and this time in history will be marked for this civil right. I don't believe people will start marrying sheep or some other idiotic claim these people make. It's just fear of the unknown and the fear makes these people want to get rid of it. \n\nAs for sex, it's a natural thing. Whether you believe me or not, religion is a way of controlling behavior, look back to the Middle Ages if you don't believe me, and sex is one of those urges though totally natural, suppressed. Just like nudity (see Genesis) or other "sins." As for why these people speak of it constantly, well, let's just call it "sexual frustration" and thus they must get the frustration out of their system. It's a lot like if you had a fight with a friend and have to vent to someone so you feel better.
104659
Marriage as defined within Christian, Islam or Jewish tradition and teaching is between man and women only.\n\n\nGovernment marriage as seen by the issue of licence and state rights for that legal action, is governed by the state.  The living together and sexual acts have been found to no longer be illegal merely against normal moral values.\n\nso from the state it would be a state right issue, and so far every vote that states have had, has shown by large numbers that voters, most of the public don't want gay or lesbain marriage.  The areas like MASS that do have it, have it becuase of court action, not by the vote of the citiznes.\n\nSo basicly forcing an relationship not wanted by the general public as proven by vote, it is an example of fringe lobby groups forcing thier desires on the public by court action, not public acceptance.\n\nAnd for the unions thierself, in thier pretending to be a marriage they make a mockery of the real committed couples who are man and wife.\n\nBut personally, I wish marriage on them.  they already live together committing the sins of thier sexual actions.\nSo why not get the punishment of having to pay allomony, having to end up paying child support when they adopt and split up.  And having to give up 1/2 of thier property when they split up.
647818
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
369684
I'm not Christian and I don't look to the bible for approval. \n\nFirst love, well love is love, your the one adding gender and sexuality to the equation. Whether it's between a man and woman or a man and a man, love is the most beautiful thing this world has to offer.\n\nSome of the best parents I've known were gay who had adopted children whose real parents didn't want them and giving them a home and a family. Just because they aren't adding to an already overpopulated planet doesn't mean that they aren't contributing, quite the opposite actually. \n\nNow to address marriage, well that's you crazy fundamentalists denying gays rights. Not our fault.
8839
It might lead to it in the long run, polygamists might eventually get the court precidence if gay marriage goes through. Legally speaking, it could easily happpen. There really hasn't been "homosexual marriage" in history, but there have been hundreds of societal examples of it being extremely common, and expected, valued, and practiced - the greeks, the spartans, the japanese, etc. It has only been considered 'unnatural' in some western cultures over the past 1,000 years or so. In many cultures, it has only become 'unnatural' in the last 200 years or less, and that is simply because of Western ideals being imported.
107781
Marriage is not only a religious rite.  Marriage is also a civil proceeding, even where it is done in a church.  (And very often it is not done in a church -- it is done in a hotel, or city hall, and presided over by a judge or clerk, and no religious figures are involved.)  The license comes from the state not the church, and all the legal benefits of marriage come form the state, not the church.  \n\nChurchs are and should be free to define marraige in the church however they want. (And some churches do approve same sex marraige, by the way.)  \n\nThe government, however, should not be free to discriminate against people simply because of their sexual orientation.  And if the principles of freedom and equality enshrined in the Constitution and so bragged about by Americans were actually enforced, the state would not be permitted to bar same sex marriages.  And the world would be a little fairer.
627244
I'm for it.  Marriage is a ceremony that recognizes the love of two people and their commitment to be together.  How can a civilization that preaches love and equality for all ban two people from marrying regardless of sex, religion, color, what ever?  People talk about religion but tons of people get married without going through a religious ceremony.  Marriage is an institution, it is a classification of couples status.  Neither of those two things care about what sex the two people are.  No one is hurt by two people marrying and it doesn't in any way affect any other two people who are married so why ban it?
221811
I am not sure...\n\nChristianity that allows for support of the gay lifestyle will also be a Christianity that will allow for unbelief.\n\nIf a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination . . . (Leviticus 20:13) \n\nFor this reason (i.e. their refusal to acknowledge, thank and glorify God) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27) \n\nDo not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral (or fornicators), nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (or sodomites; literally those who have coitus, or who sleep, with men), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)