Marriage Rights

[lgoasklucyl]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

He means, primarily, the tax benefits, and insurance benefits being extended to one's spouse. Not to mention those scenarios in which hospitals will admit only "family" to visiting rooms at particular times.

Ah, well fine, but then we talk of a civil union/partner, not a "family", or "marriage", because these terms are reserved for normal sexual partners.

To respect your concern for semantics, please define 'normal sexual partners' for me. I know society is allowed to stereotypically determine normal- but written into legislation? Is that necessary?

[Beastly]

Now, my question is: Why do I still retain the rights to marry, yet a homosexual does not? I'm pretty sure the bible speaks out a lot more frequently against individuals of different religions (in fact- ordering the hapless readers to 'kill' individuals practice different religions- a very constructive idea) and those who speak out against God than it does against homosexuals.




"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)
-So as long as that individual (even a homosexual, murderer, or lusting teenager) is a practicing Christian (if that's how you would like to define neighbor- I would like to hope a higher power would preach peace and love to ALL, not just his select few), their lives are just as valuable.

Do you see what you did??? you just said what you believe that verse said.... HOWEVER, that's not how I take that scipture, I don't see it saying anything about only giving favor to a practicing christian... Believe me, when I say, Christians have been very patient with me.
God gives us choices, and I choose not to hang with people who give me the creeps. Christian or NOT....Loving someone is one thing, being a doormat is another... I have gay friends, I love them. But they are not all lumped into one group. Some gay people suck. just like some Christians suck.

How about a quote from your prophet Jesus himself:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
-Jesus was a prophet of peace, not hatred. If you would like to follow in his footsteps spread peace- NOT hatred. Sounds pretty simple to me.

YOU did it AGAIN, this scripture said nothing to the fact of spreading hatred. You seem to forget that Christians who are against gay marriage, are being judged by you. I don't see Christians trying to to harm Gays. Some might because they are stupid. But once again you are lumping all people together. Having a voice and voting against something is not spreading hatred. It's simply having a voice, and who are you to say they can't have one?

Another argument you could state, is that the Federal Government should not be in charge of marriage because marriage is based in religion.

IT is based on Religion, that's why marriage is sacred to people, because it is a ritual. Do you think that white people should go on Indian Territory, and into their churches and smoke peyote and throw a huge party and disrespect their culture and religion? think about it.



If you honestly feel THAT strongy against homosexuals because of a few choice bible phrases- why don't you feel that strongly against atheists being married? I don't see any 'God Hates Atheists- Let's take away their civil liberties too' signs on the picket lines. I don't see ANYONE vying for legislation against me getting married. The government has placed in your hands the ability to live your lives how you choose- why would you choose to live them trying to oppress people? Live them to spread peace like your Lord and Savior did.

remember that atheists are not likely to get married in church with a Religious ceremony.

Bottom Line, if you read scripture and you see what happens to godless nations, you would understand why Christians don't want this country to kill it's own children and have gay marriage. Read about the city of Sodom, which is where the word sodomy came from. This is why Christians fear the USA going to shit. Not only that, but they don't want their children to accept this way of life.

I would like to see your "quote game" I think if you are going to quote anything, especially scripture, you should back it up! this is how things get twisted and misunderstood...
as you can see your interpretation to a couple of quotes was not my interpretation. if you are so well known in the bible, you should know that it is to be studied completely, not with a simple passage.

Now I understand completely how you feel, because as a Christian, I feel like having a opinion of not allowing gays to marry, makes me somehow feel confused and bad. Because I have known some really great gay couples, but those couples don't seem to be so involved with marriage stuff, they love each other and that's why they are together.... Simply put, they are together with or without a piece of paper. There are loads of straight couples that are families with children who are not legally married...

Christians feel that a Marriage Ceremony is Sacred, and not to be taken lightly. A Marriage Ceremony is not so you can have equal insurance, or whatever benefits the gays are missing out on. They also don't want to have to teach children it is ok to accept things when the bible clearly says that it is wrong.

I believe Jesus was here, and he took the world as it was not as he would have it. But when it came to the Sanctity of God, he went mad. He didn't allow that. IF people are gay, then that's what they are, but to take a Religious Ceremony and make it over monetary value is just wrong.

I hope this has helped you and not made you even more angry.

[mpjh]

The homosexuals may not be able to physically deliver a child but they can still just as effectively raise a family.

Not true. Lesbians can deliver children.

[brooksieb]

With the help of a male, being gay or straight, anyway nature always wins.

[lgoasklucyl]

The homosexuals may not be able to physically deliver a child but they can still just as effectively raise a family.

Not true. Lesbians can deliver children.

Thank you for that, being absent minded I was playing into their argument and not realizing the obvious argument on our side.

[lgoasklucyl]

I believe Jesus was here, and he took the world as it was not as he would have it. But when it came to the Sanctity of God, he went mad. He didn't allow that. IF people are gay, then that's what they are, but to take a Religious Ceremony and make it over monetary value is just wrong.

No, it shouldn't be taken over monetary value or other law-based rights. That isn't our decision though- that's what the country has turned it into. Legally bound individuals (ie: married people) receive these rights, others do not. If religious individuals want their ceremonies then they can keep them, but you still haven't answered my question: why should homosexuals not be allowed these rights OUTSIDE of your ceremonies, not imposing on your religious freedom or beliefs in ANY way, through acts such as Civil Unions?

[Napoleon Ier]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

He means, primarily, the tax benefits, and insurance benefits being extended to one's spouse. Not to mention those scenarios in which hospitals will admit only "family" to visiting rooms at particular times.

Ah, well fine, but then we talk of a civil union/partner, not a "family", or "marriage", because these terms are reserved for normal sexual partners.

To respect your concern for semantics, please define 'normal sexual partners' for me. I know society is allowed to stereotypically determine normal- but written into legislation? Is that necessary?

Well, only insofar as we shouldn't recognize homosexual, incestuous, or indeed, zoophilic couples as "married". I don't really see what differentiates one paraphilia from another morally, except the fact that society has come to view homosexuality as more "acceptable".

[FabledIntegral]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

Yeah, sure... Christians would say that science can always be overturned by miraculous intervention of God. in truth, it may well be the case that some have actually had a "miraculous" change in their fertility. This is not, possible in the case of making two of the same sex, as in, they are not going to bump 2 sperm together and have a baby. That would be a miracle indeed.

Let me just re-iterate my stance on the issue.

Marriage is currently dictated by the state. The concept of marriage is one that stems from religious beliefs. Having the state dictate who can or cannot marry is a violation of the separation of church and state. It should, then, for the purpose of legality sake only, be the state's responsibility to recognize civil unions between 2 (or, in my opinion, more) consenting adults.

Marriage is then controlled by the church, where it rightfully belongs.

I think that there are at least 2 benefits from doing things this way:

1. Churches can mandate whatever they want to constitute a marriage, even so far as to outlaw divorce if they want. You can only ever get married once, unless you are a polygamist, and if you decide to get a divorce, then you are only afforded the benefits granted by the state, which would be in accordance with your will.

2. Churches can afford what ever additional social privileged that they want to for their congregations. I have no idea what that might be, perhaps additional support for granting adoptive rights to people, etc.

3. Everyone is now equal in that legal benefits are only constructed at the individual state levels.

In short, I think that it is something that needs to be accomplished in steps. Going outright for marriage is a violation of the Constitution, IMHO, as in reality, this is a faith issue that the state has no real authority on anyway.

So, you gays out there... set your sites on the nearer objective of civil unions. When you are hunting for deer, and all you see is squirrel, its always best not to go home empty handed. It is for the sakes of your children, fight for what is right today, not yourselves... oops... I forgot... sorry.

It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage is or what it stems from - the fact is, government has gotten involved in marriage licenses. It shouldn't matter what religion thinks about the issue, once government decided to get involved, they can't be persuaded on who do to give preferential treatment to, whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals. If you want to have civil unions only, that's fine, but UNTIL then, homosexual marriage should legally be allowed until such a change is made.

To any Christian or even person that asks "why do they care, they will still have all teh same rights," I say they are all, every single one of them, fucking idiots. And with that I'd carry on a "f*ck You" to people who voted yes. Simply biggots that don't realize their beliefs should be imposed on others, whether or not tradition has any matter in the issue. Because we all know things that are old and have tradition to them have more value in legal standings, which is why I'm pissed interracial marriage is screwing over the sanctity of marriage.

[PLAYER57832]

With the help of a male, being gay or straight, anyway nature always wins.

And homosexuality is found often in nature.

[PLAYER57832]

It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage is or what it stems from - the fact is, government has gotten involved in marriage licenses. It shouldn't matter what religion thinks about the issue, once government decided to get involved, they can't be persuaded on who do to give preferential treatment to, whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals. If you want to have civil unions only, that's fine, but UNTIL then, homosexual marriage should legally be allowed until such a change is made.

I agree.

To any Christian or even person that asks "why do they care, they will still have all teh same rights," I say they are all, every single one of them, fucking idiots.

HOLD ON! Christians voted on BOTH sides of that issue, as did people who are not Christian and many who have no religious affiliation at all.

Most of my family is in California and I can gaurantee none of them voted in favor of the proposition (that is, they did not vote to limit marriage). I can also pretty well gaurantee that most of those in the church where I was raised voted "no" as well.

I agree that people who voted to limit marriage are bigoted, but you show prejudice in your statement.

[lgoasklucyl]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

He means, primarily, the tax benefits, and insurance benefits being extended to one's spouse. Not to mention those scenarios in which hospitals will admit only "family" to visiting rooms at particular times.

Ah, well fine, but then we talk of a civil union/partner, not a "family", or "marriage", because these terms are reserved for normal sexual partners.

To respect your concern for semantics, please define 'normal sexual partners' for me. I know society is allowed to stereotypically determine normal- but written into legislation? Is that necessary?

Well, only insofar as we shouldn't recognize homosexual, incestuous, or indeed, zoophilic couples as "married". I don't really see what differentiates one paraphilia from another morally, except the fact that society has come to view homosexuality as more "acceptable".

Incestuous couples have obvious biological ramifications to offspring, homosexual marriages do not. Female-female couples CAN produce their own offspring, and male-male couples can just as well adopt. These partnerships have been EXTENSIVELY studied and it has been determined that there is no developmental difference in children of same-sex couples.

Bestial couples are not allowed to be considered married- there is no legal ramifications there. I don't think his goat is going to be worried about getting medical treatment from his HMO. Also, there's obvious danger in these relationships, and the animal cannot consent. Since the animal cannot willingly consent, the married cannot be legalized.

Grouping same-sex couples with those two types is insulting. It is acceptable. They are human being born with a biological disposition to be attracted to other males. These neurotransmitters lead you to oppress them and take rights away from them every other citizen has? Well, I suppose the next group to lose their rights should be the Albino individuals for the lack of melanin creating cells they were born with.

[PLAYER57832]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

The ability to make medical decisions about someone you love. The ability to jointly own a house and not have to pay inheritance or other penalties on your partner's "share" if your partner passes. The ability to adopt children jointly in ANY state ... and to travel with them in any state and not have to worry about one parent being denied the right to make medical decisions or to even keep custody should the other parent die.

The ability to have your loved ones covered on your insurance policy as part of your family, instead of having to obtain individual policies.

But, we pretty well covered this in the homosexual marriage thread.

And no, homosexuals do NOT represent a threat to heterosexuals or our children.

The real truth is most homosexuals live pretty much like most heterosexuals, except in the bedroom. The real truth is that homosexuals are less likely, not more likely to be pedophiles or to participate in violence related to sex. (rape, etc.).

But, if you were interested in learning the truth .. you would have already done some research on the subject and found that what we have already said in that other thread is true.

[FabledIntegral]

It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage is or what it stems from - the fact is, government has gotten involved in marriage licenses. It shouldn't matter what religion thinks about the issue, once government decided to get involved, they can't be persuaded on who do to give preferential treatment to, whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals. If you want to have civil unions only, that's fine, but UNTIL then, homosexual marriage should legally be allowed until such a change is made.

I agree.

To any Christian or even person that asks "why do they care, they will still have all teh same rights," I say they are all, every single one of them, fucking idiots.

HOLD ON! Christians voted on BOTH sides of that issue, as did people who are not Christian and many who have no religious affiliation at all.

Most of my family is in California and I can gaurantee none of them voted in favor of the proposition (that is, they did not vote to limit marriage). I can also pretty well gaurantee that most of those in the church where I was raised voted "no" as well.

I agree that people who voted to limit marriage are bigoted, but you show prejudice in your statement.

It must have been poorly phrased because apparently I got the wrong intention across. I meant "to any [particular] Christian, or for that matter, any person at all." Christians formed the largest opposition to homosexual rights, and it's because of their own religious reasons those particular Christians voted the way they did. I know many Christians who voted no as well. As a friend of mine said, "It's not the job of government to regulate moral evils." And that I respect wholeheartedly. Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I voted no (I'm a Californian).

[dewey316]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

The ability to make medical decisions about someone you love. The ability to jointly own a house and not have to pay inheritance or other penalties on your partner's "share" if your partner passes. The ability to adopt children jointly in ANY state ... and to travel with them in any state and not have to worry about one parent being denied the right to make medical decisions or to even keep custody should the other parent die.

The ability to have your loved ones covered on your insurance policy as part of your family, instead of having to obtain individual policies.

Ok, so let me get this straight, as I am a little unclear of the position you guys(gal) are taking. Under California Family Code section #297, which of the above mentioned rights, is not afforded to people who enter into a domestic partnership?

I have asked this before in another thread, it went unanswered. You listed exactly what the current law allows. If you want to argue a "seperate but equal" line, then do that. But you can't list off a bunch of rights that are not being given, when they in fact are already awarded those rights under the law. You are calling people all sorts of names, and getting all worked up over these rights, that ARE ALREADY THERE.

So, I'll ask again, what right is it specificly that is being denied. If there is a specific right that is not covered under section 297, then by all means, discuss that. If you want to make the Jim Crow arguement, do that. You currently line of reasoning though, is not making your point, it is instead showing a lack of understanding of the laws in question, and what the vote actualy defined.

--John

[mpjh]

The right to be married is the right being denied.

[lgoasklucyl]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

The ability to make medical decisions about someone you love. The ability to jointly own a house and not have to pay inheritance or other penalties on your partner's "share" if your partner passes. The ability to adopt children jointly in ANY state ... and to travel with them in any state and not have to worry about one parent being denied the right to make medical decisions or to even keep custody should the other parent die.

The ability to have your loved ones covered on your insurance policy as part of your family, instead of having to obtain individual policies.

Ok, so let me get this straight, as I am a little unclear of the position you guys(gal) are taking. Under California Family Code section #297, which of the above mentioned rights, is not afforded to people who enter into a domestic partnership?

I have asked this before in another thread, it went unanswered. You listed exactly what the current law allows. If you want to argue a "seperate but equal" line, then do that. But you can't list off a bunch of rights that are not being given, when they in fact are already awarded those rights under the law. You are calling people all sorts of names, and getting all worked up over these rights, that ARE ALREADY THERE.

So, I'll ask again, what right is it specificly that is being denied. If there is a specific right that is not covered under section 297, then by all means, discuss that. If you want to make the Jim Crow arguement, do that. You currently line of reasoning though, is not making your point, it is instead showing a lack of understanding of the laws in question, and what the vote actualy defined.

--John

We're not arguing about California's vote- we're arguing about the issue across the nation. California having a segregating statue that mildly protects their rights yet still defines them lesser human beings does not cover the rest of the country.

[dewey316]

The right to be married is the right being denied.

Is marriage itself a right?

As I said, if you want to discuss seperate but equal, that might be an OK line of reasoning to discuss. But, unless you can show some sort of case law, or something in that shows that marriage is somehow a right that must be afforded to all people, then just saying that marriage is a right that is being denied, may or may not be a valid statement.

Just as the list of rights that Player listed off, all of those rights are currently being given, just not the name "marriage". You see, as a single person, I am not awarded some of the rights that a married person is. I do not get the same standard deduction on my taxes. But, I am not losing out on a right, because I have made a choice to live a lifestyle, that knowingly, does not afford me a certain tax status. If I were to try to sue the state, saying that I was being discriminated against, because of my choice of lifestyle, I would be laughed at.

I most certainly understand that want/need to be with the person you love, at the hospital. I most certainly understand the health insurance coverage desire/need. That is not what is being argued here. Ift the basis of the argument, is that things, they are already there.

If the arguement is just the "right to be married", then you must first prove that it is right, and that it is being DENIED. One could quite possibly make the arguement, that even if marriage is between just a man and a woman, then we are still not denying that right to homosexuals. They could without a question, marry a member of the opposite sex. Just as I (a single person), could marry a member of the opposite sex. I choose not to, knowing full well the ramifications of that choice. A homosexual person, has an equal opportunity to marry a member of the opposite sex, but choose not to.

I know that it is a weird line of thinking. I am throwing it out there, so that everone in here has to start thinking about this. For arguements like this, we have to first define right, equal, and choices.

--John

[dewey316]

We're not arguing about California's vote- we're arguing about the issue across the nation. California having a segregating statue that mildly protects their rights yet still defines them lesser human beings does not cover the rest of the country.

Wait, wait, wait. When was the last time that a wedding that you went to, ended with... and by the power invested in my, by the United States Governement. Marriage is a State issue, not a federal one. Unless you change that, marriage is the domain of the State.

[porkenbeans]

It doesn't matter what the concept of marriage is or what it stems from - the fact is, government has gotten involved in marriage licenses. It shouldn't matter what religion thinks about the issue, once government decided to get involved, they can't be persuaded on who do to give preferential treatment to, whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals. If you want to have civil unions only, that's fine, but UNTIL then, homosexual marriage should legally be allowed until such a change is made.

I agree.

To any Christian or even person that asks "why do they care, they will still have all teh same rights," I say they are all, every single one of them, fucking idiots.

HOLD ON! Christians voted on BOTH sides of that issue, as did people who are not Christian and many who have no religious affiliation at all.

Most of my family is in California and I can gaurantee none of them voted in favor of the proposition (that is, they did not vote to limit marriage). I can also pretty well gaurantee that most of those in the church where I was raised voted "no" as well.

I agree that people who voted to limit marriage are bigoted, but you show prejudice in your statement.

It must have been poorly phrased because apparently I got the wrong intention across. I meant "to any [particular] Christian, or for that matter, any person at all." Christians formed the largest opposition to homosexual rights, and it's because of their own religious reasons those particular Christians voted the way they did. I know many Christians who voted no as well. As a friend of mine said, "It's not the job of government to regulate moral evils." And that I respect wholeheartedly. Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I voted no (I'm a Californian).

You may not be all that bad after all, Fab. I gotta tell ya my friend, I started reading this thread, and as interesting as it was, I just couldnt go on reading anymore. The mind numbing defense, that both sides throw up, is enough to make me want to stick my head in the oven. LOL. ...P E O P L E, pull your heads, for just one second, out of your collective asses. All of this time and effort that everyone is affording this subject, is all over the meaning of a single, little, WORD. Civil unions are already on the books in every democratic judicial system on the planet. In fact, it is mandated by our own Federal Government. You can call it a civil union if you want. It really doesnt matter. Their rites are the same as those that are married. So, to say that they can get a civil union, but, they cant get married, is just an attempt to own the word. The word marrage is not owned by anyone. If the word marrage to you means a man and a woman, thats fine. Nobody is trying to tell you what to think. It was not long ago that blacks and whites couldnt marry, because your side said, that it was a sin. Why dont you all, just get the hell out of the biz of telling people what to do. Gay people have been around as long as there have been people. And within the families of us all is the one fem. cousin that everyone knows is sweet. or the butch aunt that rides a Harley. We are not all born the same in this respect. Just Imagine if it was yourself, that was born into the minority. You wouldnt care too much for those that would point their wagging fingers at you and say you are a sinner and you may not marry your wife. You can however get a "Civil Union". Marriage is just a word. Words are the property of NO HUMAN BEING. ...Thats all.

[black elk speaks]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

The ability to make medical decisions about someone you love. The ability to jointly own a house and not have to pay inheritance or other penalties on your partner's "share" if your partner passes. The ability to adopt children jointly in ANY state ... and to travel with them in any state and not have to worry about one parent being denied the right to make medical decisions or to even keep custody should the other parent die.

The ability to have your loved ones covered on your insurance policy as part of your family, instead of having to obtain individual policies.

Ok, so let me get this straight, as I am a little unclear of the position you guys(gal) are taking. Under California Family Code section #297, which of the above mentioned rights, is not afforded to people who enter into a domestic partnership?

I have asked this before in another thread, it went unanswered. You listed exactly what the current law allows. If you want to argue a "seperate but equal" line, then do that. But you can't list off a bunch of rights that are not being given, when they in fact are already awarded those rights under the law. You are calling people all sorts of names, and getting all worked up over these rights, that ARE ALREADY THERE.

So, I'll ask again, what right is it specificly that is being denied. If there is a specific right that is not covered under section 297, then by all means, discuss that. If you want to make the Jim Crow arguement, do that. You currently line of reasoning though, is not making your point, it is instead showing a lack of understanding of the laws in question, and what the vote actualy defined.

--John

We're not arguing about California's vote- we're arguing about the issue across the nation. California having a segregating statue that mildly protects their rights yet still defines them lesser human beings does not cover the rest of the country.

This issue, if anything, should be stripped from the power of the states to mandate what constitutes a marriage, and return it to the Church, where the issue of marriage belongs. They, instead, should issue a fair definition of what a civil union is and decide only over the legal relationship entails between consenting adults. It should not be taken into an even higher government authority such as the federal government... if that is what you meant.

[black elk speaks]

Marriage is just a word. Words are the property of NO HUMAN BEING. ...Thats all.

Or the property of us all... as we learn them, they belong to us like any other possession like any other tool.

[mpjh]

I see you are talking to yourself again BES.

[black elk speaks]

I see you are talking to yourself again BES.

no f*ck face... I am just not talking to you.

[StiffMittens]

This issue, if anything, should be stripped from the power of the states to mandate what constitutes a marriage, and return it to the Church, where the issue of marriage belongs. They, instead, should issue a fair definition of what a civil union is and decide only over the legal relationship entails between consenting adults. It should not be taken into an even higher government authority such as the federal government... if that is what you meant.

I agree with some of this (but with additional qualification). It is not the state's job to define marriage, but rather to define the legal status of married people. The church may confer its blessing on the union, but that is only a religious ceremony and has nothing whatsoever to do with law. When you get married via a religious rite, you also have to sign legal documents. You are not legally married (no matter what religious ritual you perform) unless you and your spouse (along with two witnesses) sign the marriage certificate.

The state cannot force churches to provide religious blessings on unions it doesn't recognize, but it can (and should) ensure that people bound by civil unions have identical legal rights as those bound by marriage. And when I say the state, I mean that in the more general sense. That is to say, I do think that this should be mandated at the federal level.

[black elk speaks]

This issue, if anything, should be stripped from the power of the states to mandate what constitutes a marriage, and return it to the Church, where the issue of marriage belongs. They, instead, should issue a fair definition of what a civil union is and decide only over the legal relationship entails between consenting adults. It should not be taken into an even higher government authority such as the federal government... if that is what you meant.

I agree with some of this (but with additional qualification). It is not the state's job to define marriage, but rather to define the legal status of married people. The church may confer its blessing on the union, but that is only a religious ceremony and has nothing whatsoever to do with law. When you get married via a religious rite, you also have to sign legal documents. You are not legally married (no matter what religious ritual you perform) unless you and your spouse (along with two witnesses) sign the marriage certificate.

The state cannot force churches to provide religious blessings on unions it doesn't recognize, but it can (and should) ensure that people bound by civil unions have identical legal rights as those bound by marriage. And when I say the state, I mean that in the more general sense. That is to say, I do think that this should be mandated at the federal level.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It has always been a states issue. Why would it need to be taken to the federal issue?