I'll agree with the guy above me, which has been my opinion all along. Marriage as a religous ceremony can and should be as exclusive as it wants to be. They're toting a set of morals here, and even if I don't believe in them they have the right to, and enforce them. The government doesn't get in the way of many other religous rituals, so why should it do so with marriage? In fact, I know some native rituals that are even exempt from the country's drug laws, and if we were going to force our equal rights movement on the church, then we should force our war against drugs on their religion.
But that's ridiculous.
But that doesn't mean I think we should ban gay marriage. It means that we should take our hands out of marriage all together.
I do, however, believe a gay couple has every right to the same benefits as a straight couple. This is where civil unions come in. Civil unions, in theory should contain all the same perks that a government "marriage" should contain, only they aren't a religous ceremony. They're a legal process. I think anyone that wants to join, gay or straight, man or woman should be allowed to go through with this process that legally makes these people the most immediate family, entitled to health insurance and
all the mom-jazz I don't want to type out right now. Anyone who can find a church that is willing to marry them can get married after that, because it's no longer a legal process.
AegisEvo
However I don't want to see it get to the point where gay couples are suing churches because they won't marry them when it's the church's right to refuse.
That's just silly. If a gay couple does that I will personally laugh at them, and anyone that hasn't been castrated by the PC revolution will laugh too. We don't force the Catholic church to marry interfaith couples, because it's against their policy. We should take the same approach with gay marriage.
(OH, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW I'M NOT A LE..... HOSHIT I -AM- A LESBIAN! AAHHHHGGNngnngnng.@KJklfjlkjflkdj
gonk )