Why is this even an issue?

[delldude]

Dell.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. The religious aspect of it belongs in the church/temple/monastery of your choice. If the president does not like it, I really don’t care. Religion has no business sticking it’s nose into the private affairs of the American public. If your religion wants to ban gay marriage that is with in their right to do so. I am not a member of your religion so I really do not care. When your religion tries to tell me what I may or may not do, that is when I start to care.

Marriage was and is a culmination of replicating ones self through copulation and separating us from animals....all animals/insects/etc procreate....however a limited few couple for life...man being one of those...bonding/marriage is between man and woman for the sole purpose of continuing the survival of the species.....any other act does not continue the survival of the species.....how many homosexual unions have spawned children within[/]b the union?

 

[Garfield1966]

Marriage was and is a culmination of replicating ones self through copulation and separating us from animals....all animals/insects/etc procreate....however a limited few couple for life...man being one of those...bonding/marriage is between man and woman for the sole purpose of continuing the survival of the species.....any other act does not continue the survival of the species.....how many homosexual unions have spawned children within[/]b the union?

That may be how your religion defines it. Marriage in the eyes of the government is a civil contract. A marriage license is a legal document enforceable by law. Man has been procreating long before the concept of marriage was instituted. Marriage seems to have originated in religion for reasons that elude me. The current application of marriage seems to be a way of controlling assets, care of offspring and such. Two people can get married with out any religious intervention (such as I did) by getting a JP and having a wedding in a non-religious environment. My wife and I were discussing this one night and she got all bent out of shape. When I asked what changed from the night before we had our lives joined legally (marriage to you) to the night after, that is when it occurred to her that marriage was a legal process. Our live did not change. Nothing changed other than the fact that she was entitled to some of my stuff under Texas law and that she now was covered by my health insurance.

You may define marriage any way you see fit. IMO, you do not have the right in a free country to define who may or may not share their lives together with each other and more importantly, have access to all the rights that come with that union. Your religion may segregate its members as it see fit. The government IMO does not have the right to classify people as second class citizens because it does not agree with their life style.

BTW, my partner and I are not having children. We had a civil union (marriage to you) because of the benefits (health for her) and it was easier than jumping through all the hoops of getting power of attorneys and all that crap which could theoretically be contested by family. Nothing more.

Religion needs to get out of the publics life. IMO, there should be no government sanctioned ‘marriages’. They should all be civil unions. Marriages are for the religious institution of your choice. They should have no legal standing in this country. Any two individuals who which to enjoy the legal benefits of a civil union should be allowed to do so. As far as I am concerned, you go down, get the license, sign it, turn it in and your joined (married for you). At that point if the two people chose, they may go to the religious institution of their choice and be married.




One more thing. I seem to recall you speaking ill of 'activist judges' who create law or play fast and loose with the constitution. Why is it that you seem to be so willing to change the constitution to prohibit something it never intended to do?