Presidential Hopefuls Pressed on Gay Issues

Marriage is between a man and woman. Period.

Let me correct you on a grammatical point. Your sentence should read:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Semicolon. Or a woman and a woman. Semicolon. Or a man and a man.

Marriage is between a man and woman. Period.

Says who?

Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, if my religion wants to marry two men, or two women, than what are you, or your religion, to say about it?

The government needs to get the hell out of religion and quit regulating marriage. The government should issue civil unions to any two consenting adults who want one. Current marriages should be converted to civil unions. It's nothing more than a change in words.

I agree.

Two good friends of mine in California - a straight couple - tried to get a civil union (in protest) and they were chased out of City Hall.

Except for most of history when it was between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and...

... and has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Yes, they should be. And most or nearly most people tend to agree.

But for whatever reason, politicians think that agreeing with the public is the same as declaring that they're Satanists. From my perspective it's counter intuitive.

Its funny how those on the extreme right use the same arguments against gay marriage as they did against inter racial marriages, isn't it?

OK so I might reveal a slight liberal bent here but...

Gay marriages should be treated the same as straight marriages--a union between two people who love each other.

...what business does the government have deciding who's in love with whom?

My brother jumped through a bazillion hoops to prove he was "in love" with his foreign-born bride-to-be. The whole thing seemed unseemly.

That sounds like a solution, but does that mean that people would have to have two ceremonies to reap the benefits within their religious community and have the privileges offered by the state?

That sounds like a solution, but does that mean that people would have to have two ceremonies to reap the benefits within their religious community and have the privileges offered by the state?

No you could combine it into one ceremony. It really would function EXACTLY the same as it does now, but just allow for homosexual couples get married by non-religious environments (i.e. Justice of the Peace, Judge, etc...)

This really isn't a logistical question in the sense of the ceremony, but a logistical solution related to what happens after the wedding (shared benefits, unquestionable wills, equal tax rights, etc...)

Doesn't that get us right back to the square-one issue?

I don't think so, as long as the government has a single definition of marriage that can apply to same-sex couples.

Doesn't that get us right back to the square-one issue?

No. As far as the government is concerened: the same-sex couple has a legally binding civil union that enables homosexual couples the same rights and freedoms of heterosexual couples (tax reduction, insurance benefits, and legal jurisdiction to include the other member in a will and not be questioned by parents).