Why does same-sex marriage/civil union need to be banned if it isn't legal in the first place?
826402
The question in most states is whether state supreme courts will (as Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey  and other states have) interpret the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of their state constitutions as requiring gay marriage or civil unions.  If it's in the Constitution, then the supreme court has no room for interpretation (Now, this may change if/when the Federal government/courts get involved).\n\nAs to your policy question, most people will make a religious or moral answer.  Others argue that raising kids in a gay relationship hurts the kids, which hurts society.  \nReally, to paraphrase a bunch of comedians, I don't know what harm gay marriage will do to heterosexual marriage that straight people haven't already done to it!
1084243
The problem started a long time ago, when the government started giving tax breaks to married couples.\n\nThe whole problem is one of language. When a straight couple gets married in a church, they also sign a marriage license, so they are also entering into what is called a "civil marriage."\n\nIf the government had used the phrase "civil union" instead, from the get-go, none of this mess would be happening today.\n\nStraight people would get married in church, and sign papers forming a government-backed civil union.\n\nGay people (and straight people not interested in the church part) would get a government-backed civil union only.\n\nI think you'll find that most religious people's biggest objection to "gay marriage" is the use of the word "marriage." Changing the term without changing the legal definition takes a lot of the emotional fire out of it for religious people, and they are more likely to go along with it.\n\nOf course, you have the REALLY religious people who are against ANY sort of ANYTHING for gay people, and so, since marriage is the issue of the day, they are against that. When some other aspect of gay rights comes up, these people will automatically be against that too, whatever it is.\n\nPoliticians are torn over the issue because, yes, some of them are very religious, but more to the point, some of them are more interested in staying in office than they are in making constitutional laws.... and there are more Christian voters than gay voters, if you know what I mean.\n\nPersonally, I'm fine with the terminology either way, so long as the legal part is exactly equivalent for straight and gay couples. \n\nMy lady and I already refer to each other as wife... we are just waiting for society and the government to catch up. :-)
877003
Since there are civil benefits to marriage, morally, it must be open to all.\n\nno one has a monopoly on marriage - certainly no one religion - although religious institutions do have the right to set their own internal rules, they should not be in a position to forbid others to do so.
261354
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.
452020
Because polygamy is WRONG.  Marriage is about commitment between two people, not three, four, or five.  And there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.  I think they have as much a right to get married as anybody else, as long as its only to ONE person!
298235
No.  The federal government is currently run by morons who are afraid to legitimize gay marriage because they are under the dilusion that it might somehow impact the Church (even though the religious and legal institutions of marriage are totally and completely separate and any Chuch can refuse to marry anyone they want for any reason they want).  Same-sex partnerships essentially have no legal status in the US, so their existence is virtually irrelevent to the immigration process.  It's not fair but that's the way it is.
1072467
It's "Christians" trying to hammer their beliefs into everyone.  In this case, you're right, it's a state issue and not a religious issue since it involves property and adoption rights, etc.\n\nThe same folks whine that gay and lesbian people do not form lasting relationships [which is not true] and then turn around and try and ban marriage.  What hypocrites!\n\nThey should try compassion, love, tolerance and JUSTICE for a change.  WWJD?
803294
Not for it.  Call it a civil union if you must but not marriage.
609035
Since marriage is a legal description of a state of affairs, not a right conferred by the constitution, it is possible no such amendment could ever be ratified in the first place. \n\nI think at best, an amendment like that could define marriage but never prevent gay people from having a union of the same status with another name.
1078787
because homosexuality is an abomination unto God.\n\nIf homosexual marriage is legalized, it would mean a further widening seperation from God also.  When that happens, you'll know who's angry right then.  And it won't be us, the homosexuals, or the American government.  It'll be God.
1142718
Many voters and politicians are being bigots.  I have listened to radio talk shows and read tons of stuff on the Internet, and I have yet to see or hear an argument for banning gay marriage that makes sense to me.  I am a Christian.  I am against persecuting others and I expect to be persecuted.  Gay people being allowed to get married is not going to affect my heterosexual marriage one bit.  It is not going to affect my childrens' world views, but thinking that HATE is OK because it's officially sanctioned by the government might.  Let the church do as it will, but the state needs to allow minorities their basic civil rights.
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.
784269
I won't get into the sin thing, since I'm a Humanist and that's a religious concept, but it does seem to me that, if one of the reasons societies promote marriage is to promote stability, then it doesn't make sense to discourage same-sex couples from marrying.  Denying gay couples the right to marry is not defending marriage.
184172
You can marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, while they can't. Laws against same-sex marriage impose an arbitrary, and essentially religious view of marriage on people who do not believe in it, for no reason other than to maintain the status quo. It is ridiculous to say that you have the same rights because you can't marry someone of the same sex either; you obviously don't want to.
339051
why does it have to be illegal?
738876
There isn't a real one. One of the arguments made by opponents of same sex marriage is that allowing it could open the door for other things, such as acceptance of polygamy. It's baseless and primarily a tactic by the morality police (Conservative Christians) to keep people under their reigns.
1040814
Nothing wrong with a civil union between any two consenting adults. The word "marriage" is a religious term describing the union of one man and one women, and just because gay people want to form a union shouldn't change the meaning of the word.