slapnose.com

I have mixed opinions on this. First of all, marriage is a institution of the church, not the state. Marriage is not the governments to define. By allowing same sex marriages, church and state are not seperated. On the other side though, i do support same sex couples getting the same benifits as married couples, that is what the governments job is, not to define marriage, which has been around way before governments. There obviously needs to be some compromise on this issue.

Yabbut churches don't grant marriage licenses, right? Where you get your marriage license appears to vary from state to state (usmarriagelaws.com is a good source to figure that out). In Virginia, where I am, marriage licenses are granted by the clerk/deputy of the circuit court in the county or city where the bride or groom live.

I would also dispute the statement that "marriage has been around way before governments." Is that true? We're not counting hitting someone on the head with a club as a marriage.

This gives me hope: Andrew Sullivan sees it your way: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

Clubbing women isn't marriage? Boy, do I have a lot of explaining to do.

Marriage is more than a piece of paper from a government. It was defined by the church and thats the way it should stay.

You need a license before you get married, don't you?

It is entirely possible to get married, legally, without the involvement of any church. Marriage does not HAVE to be tied to any religion at all.

How does gay marriage affect the separation of church and state as you said in your first comment? How is that going to reduce the separation? The proposed amendment to the Constitution will do more to bring church and state together, won't it? An amendment saying the government can limit the kinds of things that can go on in a church (or out of a church, as I mentioned above)? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Cam,

This issue is not about the church. Churches are free to endorse or sanction (nor not) marriage in whatever way they see fit already.

In our society marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one. To many people, it is ONLY a legal one., as MArshall pointed out. It provides distinct benefits; legally, financially, etc.

The point is that our government already does define marriage. The question is, should that definition be discriminatory?

Your -- or anyone else's -- church's definition of it is beside the point and would remain unchanged either way.

And Cam, I apologize because I probably came across a little harsher than I intended. Like Anthony mentioned, the definition of marriage isn't limited just to being an institution of any church, and for the longest time the issue of marriage is one that has been left up to the individual states to decide on. Ted Kennedy is no saint, but I like his comment about Bush being the first president in history who wants to put discrimination back into the Constitution.
All I know is that whenever I get married, some other couple's gay marriage won't have any affect on my straight one.

Cam, if we accept your argument that marriage was defined by "the church," many questions remain: Which church? Why that church? And what about churches which sanction homosexual unions?

Slapnose Merchandise! At last!