[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The first problem is that "Marriage" isn't a federal issue. Its a civil issue between the people involved. It doesn't concern you or me or joe and jane smith down the street unless we are the ones getting married,

Correct.

and it only concerns federal entities because they want to have as much ability as they can to weasel their way into your wallet or pocketbook.

and also because it's a legal standing that's recognized under law.

Personally - I think "gay marriage" is a crock - both on a moral level and as a legal issue. However, the reality of the fact is that its not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on anyone. What two (adult, consenting) people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is the business of no one else.

You are absolutely correct.

Yet the reality is that there is nothing stopping a gay couple from drawing up a civil contract that equates (in rights and responsibilities) to marriage.

Except for the fact that many states will not recognize the validity of that contract

Yet they CHOOSE not to do this. Why? Because they want to change society - make society conform to their views.

When a citizen's rights are being abridged then yes society should change.

Which is just as bad as the majority seeking to require them to conform to the majority view.

The minority is taking no rights away from the majority if gay marriage is recognized, so this is irrelevant.

This is not about "equal rights" and never has been.

Yes it is.

Its about changing the moral and societal structure of civilization.

To give a group of citizens the same right to marry whom they're romantically attached to as everyone else enjoys. Yes, society should change. Also, your morals are irrelevant. We've been over this.

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion. No "traditional", mainstream religion supports homosexuality.

Completely irrelevant as government is secular.

Thus, to try to state that something is a marriage when the foundations of the word say it cannot be - is nothing mroe than an attempt to seperate the action with its root. In essence - cutting down the tree that has been one of the pillars of society for eons.

So annul the marriage of every atheist or agnostic because they don't buy into your "marriage is a religious thing" argument. Unless you're grasping at straws to find an argument against gay marriage.

There is no "good" answer on this question - but the best one out there is to leave it as a states rights issue - but that would require a change in the Full Faith and Credit laws as well.

14th Amendment very clearly says it's not a state's right issue: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"