I completely support civil unions and full civil rights for all Americans. However, it would be difficult for me to vote in favor of same sex "marriage." In the United States, marriage is overwhelmingly associated with a religious ceremony of some sort. I would not be in favor of forcing religions to sanction something they almost all oppose as part of their doctrine. Therefore, my opposition to same sex marriage is a vote against the interference of government in religious matters. It is also an expression of my strong desire for a renewal and reinforcement of the political doctrine regarding the separation of church and state. In other words, I will agree to refrain from interfering in religious affairs with an understanding that the church stop publicly commenting on political matters, such as abortion. If the Catholic Church expects one to respect their religious perspective on marriage being between a man and a woman then they should learn to remain a spiritual organization and not a political one. In this light, my vote against same sex marriage should be viewed as a vote against the political ambitions of religious organizations and not as a slight against a person's sexual orientation.

So, are atheists allowed to get married? If "marriage" is more than a social contract--and when performed by a JP down at city hall is it really more than a social contract?--than those who do not subscribe to a religion or even believe in God should not enter into this holy sacrament of marriage, right? G. Bush Sr. wasn't even sure atheists were citizens, so we better take away their right to marry, too. How about a constitutional amendment? DOMA II? Those who cannot separate the religious sacrament of matrimony, that which is performed in a church, by a church officiant, with the full support of said church, from the legal contract of marriage--which, by the way kinda, sorta predates Christ and the sacrament--are relying on faulty logic and revisionist history for supporting bigotry and discrimination. But, hey, civil unions are separate but equal. And Plessy vs Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of that.

There are plenty of religious institutions that will marry same sex couples.

So what you are saying in effect is that if a Church were to marry two people regardless of their sexual orientation that the Constitution needs to respect that marriage?

Your point seems to work against your argument.

And nobody is asking the Catholic Church to sanctify same sex marriage. As we all know, there is nothing gay about the Catholic Church.....well......

It is kind of like how do you pronounce Tomato, isn't it?

I happened to get married in the Lutheran Church because it was convenient - neither myself nor my wife were Lutherans and we still are not.

If marriage is defined as a religious institution, then that has to include all religions and there are plenty of religious institutions that have no problem with same sex marriages or atheist marriages or for that matter, marrying you pet goat. It seems to me that the concept of a religious institution tied to the government in this secular era is as old fashioned as buggy whips.

Dear Trebuchet,

But you are incorrect, if gay marraiges are legal and a church refuse to do the actions, they are going to in contempt of court, and be closed down.

This is the issue many face, we do not care what gays do to each other, but we do care what they do to us, and our children.

We should get rid of the whole concept of marriage have just a civil union for the state and marriage is reserved for a man and woman.

The gays are not trying to be married, they are trying to force others to accept their actions, and as these actions are clearly sins, we can not accept them.

Stay out of my church and leave my children alone, and do as you please, once you step over these lines, we have major issues, and issues that the majority agrees with.

God Bless You

in more liberal states, it is easy enough to separate marriage and religion. Unfortunately, here in ultra-conservative Texas, the religious majority do not consider a civil ceremony a "true" marriage since it is sanctioned by the state and not by God. Therefore, those of us who are non-religious and married by the state, are looked upon as something less than those married in the eyes of God. The only point I was trying to make before was that while it may be possible to "win" the right to be married by the State you will never force the righteous Christians to accept your beautiful union as legitimate. Thus, if you want the State to sanction your marriage then I am with you. However, if you think for one minute that a law will change conservative Christian attitudes towards you then you are likely to be disappointed. Most Christians around here don't even consider my wife and I to be truly married since there was no minister present. However, their acceptance is unimportant because we are married to one another out of love and for our own reasons. A civil ceremony meets our needs. In a same sex situation, I can only imagine the anguish that two persons, committed to one another, would face when trying to convince these good Texas Christians that they too love God and wish to be married in His name. I do support same sex marriage but cannot imagine that most Christians will ever accept it. I have found that Christians love one another, with conditions.

Shoo troll your ignorance is showing

if gay marraiges are legal and a church refuse to do the actions, they are going to in contempt of court, and be closed down.

Stupid and ignorant. Divorce is legal in all 50 states. Catholic Church refuses to marry divorces. Yet they are not in contempt of court.

We should get rid of the whole concept of marriage have just a civil union for the state and marriage is reserved for a man and woman.

More ignorance. Civil "marriage" is nothing more than a contract of civil union TODAY.

The gays are not trying to be married, they are trying to force others to accept their actions, and as these actions are clearly sins, we can not accept them.

Go peddle your hatred and ignorance elsewhere.

Ignore Mark_RSM - he's a troll. No logic or coherence to be expected.

The key is that the current marriage license is a civil union license in the first place.

Why hasn't there been a movement to rename "marriage licenses" to what they are "civil union" licenses. Title this movement "Religious Marriage Protection Act" - and put in it verbiage about how in order to insure that The Government may never prescribe to ANY church who it may chose to marry or not marry, the act removes from The Government the power to license marriage. Instead in the interests of supporting various types of marriages and promoting the raising of children, what is currently referred to as "marriage" in all laws and statutes is revised to be "civil union".

Do this as a first step. With the right ad campaign this might well pass

THEN seek to extend civil unions to cover homosexual unions as well.

All the gay couples on our block with the exception of two guys that really don't care about those things have gotten a church wedding. There is nothing the state can do to stop that and there are plenty of Christian Churches that are willing to perform the ceremony.

Churches that don't want to perform the ceremony are free not to. Is the Lutheran Church required to perform a bris because a Jewish family would like to have the ceremony in a French Gothic church?

No. Duh.

Rest assured there are plenty of Christians that are not as intolerant as you and accept people because they love them, not because they are straight or white or feel the same way about politics.

What you are afraid of is that if homosexuality becomes a normal public lifestyle, that your children might live their lives the way they were made instead of the way that your silly beliefs dictate.

Guess what? They will do it anyway, just without you.

Trebuchet - don't bother with Mark_RSM, he's a long running troll.

If you want to roll in the mud with him, remember the adage about pigs.

He doesn't respond to anything you say, he just peddles his hatred then scurries off to another display of his what I take to be willfull igonorance. Anyone who has had their head up for more than a fews seconds understands that the churches are the last bastion of discrimination, which I personally think they have a right to do. I am not sure how you could be sentinent and not be aware of that fact.

Time to ignore him indeed.

Discrimination itself is not bad. When I chose between a bagel for bkfst or a poached egg, I was discriminating.

Discrimination based on mythologies is the bad one. And since churches inherently are based in a mythos, religiously based discrimination IS the problem.

Discrimination is a problem when you change how someone will live based on attributes of that person that they have no control over.

As far as churches go with their discrimination, I am not sure that is such a problem, but I say that as a secular individual, so I am not sure my perspective is correct. I go by the Marxist philosophy that "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member" but I am not sure everyone would agree with that philosophy.

I know that in some more conservative circles you can be refused employment - not directly, but it has happened to me, indirectly - if you do not belong to a church and usually that requires you to belong to a specific church. But I don't necessarily see that as discrimination by the church that won't let you join them, as much as it is discrimination on the part of an employer.

As long as not belonging to a particular church does not affect my socio-economic status, I would think that religion is one of those things that would either be pure or not worthy of consideration.

Discrimination is a problem when you change how someone will live based on attributes of that person that they have no control over.

No - also not true. After all, how a woman experiences sex is necessarily going to be different than how a male expereinces sex.

What matters is how The Law or society treats individuals and whether that treatment is based in mythos or fact.

Mark_RSM:

Dear Trebuchet,

But you are incorrect, if gay marraiges are legal and a church refuse to do the actions, they are going to in contempt of court, and be closed down.

This is the issue many face, we do not care what gays do to each other, but we do care what they do to us, and our children.

We should get rid of the whole concept of marriage have just a civil union for the state and marriage is reserved for a man and woman.

The gays are not trying to be married, they are trying to force others to accept their actions, and as these actions are clearly sins, we can not accept them.

Stay out of my church and leave my children alone, and do as you please, once you step over these lines, we have major issues, and issues that the majority agrees with.

God Bless You

What the fuck??? How would the State be compelled to shut down a private church for contempt of court for failing to perform a same sex marriage? I believe there are already places to receive a State recognised marriage without ever attending a church.

What could gays do in their lives that affect you or your children? Nothing other than living as is their right.

Sorry, but those who supported DOMA already muddied the waters regarding the term marriage and what rights, benefits and liabilites associated with marriage in the bulk of legal code. It is far lest costly and laborous to expand the definiton of marriage as a contract than to limit it.

What is wrong with homosexual's actions? Are they not allowed to love and enjoy relationship companionship in the same manner as any other human being? The concept of sin is a subjective one. I think being an asshole like you is a sin but hey that is MY version of sin. I certainly wouldn't want you judging my life according to your narrow guidelines unless I can judge your wife for being too stupid to swallow cum and not get knocked up and breed.

No one would want to go to your church and you could certainly take your children and live somewhere more suited to your narrowmindness and bigotry as those or the real lines that have been overstepped by you.

Keep your offensive and bigoted version of a deity to yourself. You are the only one who feels it is worthy of worship.