Separate Church and state, why no gay marriage?
965405
It used to be against the law for whites to marry brown people.  It used to be against the law for women to own property.  It used to be against the law for a woman to get an abortion- even if she was raped, molested, or it was known she would die in child-birth.  \n\nLaws reflect the values of the cultures that make them.  Luckily for America, we are becoming more and more aware of the prejudice, bigotry, and short-sightedness of SOME of the people who have made laws in the past, and we are taking action to change it. \n\nI believe that eventually, the public will become more aware of the homosexual issues at stake, and the laws of the land will follow.  In the meantime, we should all do our part to advance the cause for our friends who are living under the bigotry of the laws that are currently in place.
210043
The US government claims to be separate from religion. IF that was true -\n\nWhy would there not be a civil legal arrangement (civil union, domestic partner, marriage, whatever) available to anyone who wanted to create a household?  Or - if these special relationships are solely for the care and protection of children, then change the rules so that only those intending/capable of parenthood are allowed to participate.  \n\nLeave a religious sacrament of marriage to the tenants of each individual faith.  As it is now, the government is treating different christian faiths differently, based on which ones they like.\n\nIn my opinion you can't have it both ways - either it is a religious sacrament and the government should have nothing to do with it OR it is an arrangement under civil law - in which case it should be open to all regardless of their religion. I suppose there is one more option - change the official statement about the separation of church and state and openly admit that our government DOES support one or more religions to the detriment of others.
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.
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.
470269
Seeing as how church and state are separated, your religious views have nothing to do with the rights of the citizens in the U.S.\n\nYes, gay people should have every right afforded a straight couple.    I have seen many gay couples who love eachother more than some straight couples.  Why shouldn't they have the right to express that love?\n\nIf you have distaste for it...  you don't have to be friends with them, or attend their nuptuals.\n\n\nTo the members of the Christian Right:\n\nWhatever happened to live and let live?\n\nWhatever happened to 'all sins being the same in the eyes of God'?\n\nWhatever happened to 'judge not lest ye be judged'?\n\n\nIt sickens me that you use your religion to judge other people when it clearly state in the Bible that God is the judge, not you.\n\nIsn't your sin of judgement just as bad as their sin?  Doesn't it say that all sins are the same in the eyes of God?  If it doesn't, feel free to let me know.....   and please don't forget the pamphlet asking me if I know where I'm going when I die..
240052
Because: \n\nWe hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.\n\n The "all men are created equal", "liberty", and "pursuit of happiness" parts apply here. "Marriage" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution or Bill of Rights. Its a fundamentalist religion thing. The signers of the Declaration were fighting against exactly this type of thing when this country was founded - religious persecution.\n\nGay marriages do not need to be approved of by the Church, but need to be legal if the rights given to Americans by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are to be upheld.\n\nI am a happily married heterosexual and see no reason why 2 homosexuals getting married would "demean" or "weaken" my marriage. Those who feel this way must not have much of a marriage in the first place.
54709
Good point! \nI also believe that homosexual marriages have no bearing on religion. Giving a legal marriage to a gay couple is not the same as forcing all churches in America to accept and perform the marriages. I really don't see why religion has a say in it, since I do believe in the seperation between church and state, and since no one's forcing all the religious damning homophobes to suddenly accept homosexuality. \nIt's very relatable to interracial marriages. And no it won't lead to beastiality or incest becoming legalized, since beastiality is just stupid and wrong and no one can say that one can love a cow, and incest is genetically wrong, so that won't ever be legalized either, don't give me your snowball fallacies.
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.
1065544
While I agree with you that banning gay marriage is neither helpful nor within the government's most important jobs, I have to disagree with you. Marriage is, beyond any spiritual or moral arrangement, a civil, legal one, and as such, the government is supposed to define the arrangement. Obviously it shouldn't do so in a way that so blatantly discriminates against another group.
715618
I hate it. There needs to be a strict separation between church and state. I'm an agnostic and don't feel the need to abide by rules set forth by one group of people telling another group of people how to live their lives.
749930
Republicans realized it could be a wedge issue and capitalized on it. Interesting definitions of "marriage" given by responders above. They all sound religious. The topic, I believe is civil marriage -- marriage as recognized or performed by the state. \n\nThere are children in US institutions and foster care who need 2 parent homes. Gays should be allowed to adopt such hard-to-place children. This would probably occur defacto. Mothers giving up their babies  and agencies with young, easy to adopt children would continue to choose straight adoptive couples.
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.
1130655
So, it seems that the answer is "NO", there are no rational reasons against same-sex marriage.\nThere are even people stupid enough to think that marriage is a religious institution. *rolls eyes* Let me let you pin-heads in on a little secret; marriage is a LEGAL institution, NOT a religious one. Don't believe me? Try getting married in a church or other religious place without the legal documentation. You can't. You can however, get married at a city or town hall without ANY mention of god or any other magic sky-pixie. \nWhy? Because marriage is a LEGAL institution. \nAnd that makes this a CIVIL right. \nSorry all you back-woods hicks, you lose. Bush is playing you inbred morons like a cheap fiddle. \nI feel nothing but pity for you.
785967
Wouldn't it be easier to just allow gay marraige instead of thinking up ways from keeping us from getting married?  What is the big deal?  Straight people get divorced everyday and everyday someone gets drunk, married by Elvis, and anulled the next day.  Us as a society has already disturbed the "sanctity" of marrige, this still might happen with gays because we are all human, but if straights are allowed to have the opportunity to do it why can't gays? \n\nMarraige has to do with your religion, therefore it should be a religous decision not a political one.  It should really be up to the person preforming the ceromony but I doubt a priest will ever be allowed to perform a gay marraige in America.\n\nUnless you're in the situation or know someone who is there is really no way of knowing or feeling what two people of the same sex have to go through to gain extra rights towards one another.  You have to get lawyers and make your partner the person in control when you die.  It's so much messier and so much longer  and it still doesn't feel the same because your not being recognized as a lover you are being recognized as just another person... that's what the real issue is about to me.\n\n**And to people pushing YOUR religous beliefs on everyone, you're not going to have anyone wanting to go to church with you when you act like that**
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.
341969
I dont know about your question, but Seperation of Church and State isnt really complete...\n\nWhy do they have Christmas and Thanksgiving as public holidays?
876739
There are two nonreligious reasons to prohibit gay marriage.  One is such a union cannot produce children.  In former times, every child was needed to support society and infant mortality was high so they absolutely forbade such unions.  That doesn't mean they didn't happen.  They were often disguised.  \n\nThat reason can go out the window.  There are plenty of children now and plenty of adults who choose, for one reason or another, not to have any.  A childless household is no longer anything to be remarked on.  \n\nThe second reason is monetary.  If the federal government, insurance companies and pension plans had to recognize a gay partner as being a spouse, they would have to pay benefits just as they would for a religious spouse.  They are fighting this.  If you think social security is in trouble now, wait until that finally gets accepted and thousands of long term gay spouses are able to draw survivor benefits.  \n\nHow do I feel about it?  LET THEM HAVE THE BENEFITS.