Okay so I've read people's input so before I put in my two cents, I just want to clarify one thing (and I mean this politely, so please don't take it the wrong way):
Do you understand what seperation of church and state is? It says that the government can't tell the church what to do and vice versa. And while it seems good in an argument, especially for something like same sex marriage, it can't really hold up. The church (being whatever church it is) isn't telling the government what to do (and again vice versa). What is happening is that anti-organizations and churches put in their two cents to the voters, pulling upon those religious beliefs which directly affects how the people vote and politicians know that even if it isn't their own opinion, if they play to the people, they will get more support.
Anyway, my own opinion is that they should. I recently wrote a paper about the controversy and I had to present a logical reason why and, I know that this is kinda long but I really don't want to try to summarize so here we go:
(remember this was copy-pasted from my essay)
In joining the ongoing battle, I must agree with those for same sex marriage.
In my research, I found that that by making same sex marriage illegal, we are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution which states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The dictionary definition of abridge is to "reduce or lessen...; diminish." So by not allowing same sex couples a union, we are "abridging" the rights of homosexuals not only where marriage is concerned, but with some of the benefits as well, like being able to decide where a partner is buried.
Some have argued that by allowing same sex marriage, we, as a society, would then be led to "homosexuality being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality." I have a question for those who think this: Where in the curriculum of students of any age is marriage and sexual orientation being taught? If looking at a class schedule for a freshman in high school for example, where will you see "English, Math, Marriage and Sexual Orientation, PE..."? From my own experience I can gladly say you won't. Even while in sex education classes that were presented for one to two weeks in physical education classes or drivers education, few, if any, students hear specifically what marriage is or is not. Nor will they hear about heterosexuality versus homosexuality and which is right or wrong. The goal of these classes and presentations is to promote abstinence throughout adolescence to prevent the contraction of STD s and teen pregnancy. Evidence has shown that STD s- including but not limited to HIV and herpes- can be contracted no matter which kind of sex is being in practice.
Same sex marriage is also viewed as a threat to liberty because if churches or organizations are not accepting of couples, they can lose their tax exempt status. However, I see it as acknowledgment of them being people that are civilly bound and not necessarily accepting what they see as "sin." It is respecting the union, not the act of intimacy. It's really a rather small request and not hard to accomplish if these churches and organizations, specifically the Christian based ones, live by their own teachings found in the book of Matthew that states to "hate the sin but love the sinner." And will all of the US suffer because of this requirement? Will the economy collapse and our children be in danger? Not really.
