Do you think separation of marriage and state would be a worthwhile idea ?
144590
I already keep the state out of my marriage. I would like to think I am responsible enough to maintain my marriage without the government butting in. But I think that a lot people need someone/thing to act as a mediator when their marriages dissolve, so they turn to the state. Doesn't mean they should, but...
783301
Unequivocally NO! If they chose that life style then so be it, but as far as benefits are concerned out of the question.  Societies fall from moral decay and that is a fact, and ours is well on it's way, I do believe all this gay and lesbian stuff is about to blow up in their faces.  It is a life style that destroys the vary meaning of marriage between a man and a woman, In my opinion they are an insult to humanity.  I believe it is time our religious leaders and government gives these people a loud and clear message that the party is over and will not be condoned by our society.
254438
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.
305429
I think there is much merit in the analogy (although I think marriage should be for life).\n\nA lot of politicians come in with high hopes of changing things and then after a few years become part of the problem and not the solution.
217027
I support gay marriage all the way. Civil unions sound like a good way to keep the "sanctity of marriage" while still giving gays equal rights, but actually civil unions only give a portion of the rights that marriage gives and are more easily contested in court by family members. Gays and lesbians would still be denied equality that way. I also think the "sanctity of marriage" argument is bogus, as the definition of marriage not only differs with culture and religion, but has also changed within this country several times over the centuries. See the link for a short and amusing "history of marriage in America."
898841
They should be.  Plus a zillion more.  We are so caught up in the romance of marriage, we forget that it is s-e-r-i-o-u-s.  We don't want to talk about these things.\nAnd we can always get a divorce, right?  Even when both parties agree it isn't working out it still causes immeasurably emotional damage.\n\nHere are a few from my arsenal:\nWhat will you do when you find you cannot agree?\n\nWho will be responsibile for paying the bills and keeping the checkbook?\n\nWhat is your attitude toward children?\nWhat would you do if you cannot conceive children of your own?\n\nHow often do you want to invite people to your home?\n\nWhere will you spend Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter? How will you decide?
364706
could definitely do it in a weekend if its not a same sex marriage. could do it pretty much in a day in several states actually. you can go to tennessee one afternoon and get married in a courthouse.
7593
Depends on how you define marriage. Also, it has tax benefits and such, so the government doesn't want to legalize gay marriage, apart from the moral interpretations and legal things.
792158
Yes.  The government should get out of the business of marriage and look at only those relationships that can be governed legally.\n\nLook at it this way, if two people (man and woman) get a marriage certificate but don't get married by a preacher/priest/rabbi/etc. are they married in the eyes of the church?  If they never said their vows to God, probably not.  But by the government's standards, they still have the same benefits and liabilities.  Or look at it the other way around, if two people marry in a church but don't get the license, do they still get the tax benefits?  No, because to the government they're not married.\n\nAnd you want it this way.  Do you want the government telling you what a valid marriage is?  Or do you want your church to give you the rules for marriage?  Isn't marriage between two people, not two people and the government?\n\nAlso look at it on the back end, if the government says what a marriage is, it can also tell you when your marriage is over.  So if I'm Catholic and get a divorce through the courts, am I still married according to the church?  You bet you are.  You have to get the marriage annulled or you can't get married in the church again.  But if the government says you aren't married, why can't you get married in the church?  Because the church doesn't care what the government says, they make the rules for marriage.\n\nKeep them separate.  It makes it a lot easier.
644593
At some point in the future there should certainly be a referendum on the subject. I'm not altogether sure that independence would be a good thing. Small states tend to get picked on by bully boys. You know who I mean.
240950
I think we should.  People would then move to where their ideas are held important and are tolerated.  The states that ended up most successful would become models for the others.  Also decentralization would help remove the imperialistic tendencies of the federal government and cause less world wide hatred.
819151
Sure, lets get married. Would that help you?
1068992
I personally think it is silly to want the state involved in any marriage either straight or gay. Marriage is a formal ceremony stating your intentions before God it is a travesty and an abomination to invite the state to take part in such a union. I have a marriage license but only because my minister required it. I think if I was to get married now I would find a minister who would agree to do it with out the states intrusion. Regardless of if I was marrying a man or a woman. Although as a bisexual I don't think I would ever get married again.
895761
Yes, but it will be more up to individuals to enforce Constitutional standards rather than relying on government intervention.\n\nIn the past, "separation of church and state" was used to defend religious practice of a Christian group from imposition by government. Today it is used to defend secular beliefs from perceived threats to impose Christian dominance.\n\nThe real issue is not "separation of church and state" but "consent of the governed."  Regardless of religious or secular views, no groups or individuals want their "consent" to be violated by an outside group or authority.  So that is the real issue, not freedom of religion but free will in general.\n\nIf we interpret religious freedom to mean free will and right of consent, people should have the right to govern and to be governed as they believe, without infringement on personal security by threat of censorship or oppression, as long as everyone respects the same of others so there is peace and justice.\n\nSo by this interpretation, of religious free exercise as free will, this has always been the struggle of humanity, and will continue to surface again and again until this issue is finally addressed and resolved.  Freedom is no more or less important as it was in the past, but will rise to a higher level of understanding as a universal right that all people require by nature, regardless if they call it religious or political or intellectual freedom.\n\nIt is the same argument, reincarnated over and over, until we establish mutual respect across all institutions and nations.\n\nBy its very nature, "consent of the govern" cannot be imposed by government force, but can only be established by free choice.  \n\nOtherwise laws contradict themselves, as in trying to separate "church and state" when all laws are, in fact, a form of moral code that reflects individual or collective values and beliefs.  Again, the issue behind "religious freedom" is whether or not individuals consent to the standards enforced.
428820
I beleive that if the supreme court decides, (not sure about the NEW supreme court or future) they would choose FOR same sex marriages. Popularity isn't the issue here. Honestly coast to coast right now if people voted in a private booth for or against civil rights, sadly I don't think our country would choose it. It ws decided because it was the right thing, dispite the prejudiceness of the country. Straight marriages are not going to crumble because of it. It would remove one argument of gay sin as sex -when married. It would give us equal rights (no special rights) for property and visitation (upon sick or dying) and the other 1700 rights and privilages given straight married couple automatically imposed or implied when legally married. I beleive I'll see the day. At least the hope of it keeps me going and the faith in our legal system.
237307
no\n\nthe federal government would have to recognize the marrage and they dont at this time.\n\nif you have other ground then go ahead but not for "spouse of citizen" as a reason
787373
I dont care if they do. As a matter of fact, I think they should. Seperation of church and state, marriage, legally, is a state issue.\n\nHowever, a friend of mine, a Christian, does not support it, because it contributes to the moral decline of marriage. My point to her was "Doesnt the 50% HETEROSEXUAL divorce rate do that too?" She had no answer.