Whether people want to believe it or not there is a separation of church and state written into this nation's constitution. You are not required, by law, to wed in a religious institution and a church only wedding is not legal. The federal government does not have the constitutional right to define marriage based on a religious doctrine. If a religious institution doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, as everyone has a right to believe what they wish, they do not have to sanction the marriage or perform ceremonies in their churches. A hundred plus years ago blacks in this nation were not allowed to marry. The Bible was interpreted by white slave owners to create a belief that they were inferior and could not understand or sustain the bonds of marriage. They believed that allowing such unions would destroy the sanctity of marriage. History has shown this was a way to control the population. The same argument is begin used today. Every member of any religion has a right to believe what they wish and I do not wish to disrespect their beliefs. However, everyone has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Same-sex marriage will not be the downfall of civilization. When we live in a society of drive thru wedding chapels, quickie divorces and game shows where women compete to marry a stranger I do not think that two people falling in love is the least of our worries. My 2 cents.

Absolutely, we should allow it. And this coming from an evangelical Christian background. The majority of "cons" listed are highly theoretical, with no actual basing in reality. They're all paranoid "could-happen"s, and the pro list, quite frankly, actually has a solid foundation to the con's evasively vague one. It's simple discrimination. The sooner we learn that, the sooner we can move toward love and away from ignorance and hate.

Well, i have one point to bring up about this.
Every adult in my family is on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. Except for my gay uncles, they've been together since before I was born. They have always had the healthiest and most successful relationship I've ever known.

Letting people who want to get married get married can do nothing but strengthen marriage. I live in Mass, and one couple i know that got married were beside themselves with joy about getting to file a married tax return. Thrilled about f'ing TAXES!

Letting jerks get married as a prank in Vegas or letting them get quickie annulments or divorces absolutely threaten marriage. Celebrities alone have turned marriage into a joke, we're amazed and so congratulatory if they make it a year while marriage is supposed to be forever.

What Jessy777 said.

Really, it was so well thought out and exactly what I think , too- but she put it better than I could!

Cheers, Jessy777!

"When we live in a society of drive thru wedding chapels, quickie divorces and game shows where women compete to marry a stranger I do not think that two people falling in love is the least of our worries."

Well said.

I absolutely agree with the idea that gay marriage doesn't weaken or belittle marriage, divorce does. It galls me to no end to see people on their second or third marriage speaking against a loving and committed couple's right to get married.

How can you talk about the sanctity of marriage when you have shown in your own life that you don't even know what it is?

I agree with the comments posted, especially StefaPie. My aunt has been in a relationship with her partner for 30 years and they can't get married. They are in a loving, trusting, healthy relationship while other members of my family are divorcing left and right. It doesn't make sense to me that two people who are truely devoted to each other can't get married while two straight people can get divorced and remarried at their will.

Jessy - well said!

If I knew how to do the clapping icon, I would.

I agree completely with Jessy. Very well said.

Allow it.

I'm with everyone here--if people like Larry King and Rudy Giuliani can get divorced and remarried at the drop of a hat, give the same rights to those who (shockingly!) can stay in relationships for years. However it is pretty important to remember that not all homosexuals like the idea of marriage, either--a lot of them do believe it takes away from their identity. Just a thought.

I am tired to death of people arguing that gay marriage will weaken marriage, etc. and suggesting the liberal compromise of "registered unions". If people are so worried about weakening the institution of marriage, I suggest that we make divorce and adultery illegal. I'm pretty sure nothing weakens the state of marriage like an affair. Or ending a marriage.

I completely agree, I thought that it was actually allowed in most states in the US. Over here the debate is whether or not the state should pay for IVF treatments for samesex couples and such the same way it does for heterosexual couples.

XSofieX, where do you live?

Totally agree with jessy777.

oh bother. the only reason why this comes up in campaigns is to distract people from real issues, like international affairs - because everyone knows religion-esque issues get everyone riled up and that is all they'll focus on.

I have ALWAYS thought, me personally, that this situation is very much like the civil rights situation we were in in the 1960s. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against blacks or homosexuals. In this country, EVERYONE. IS. EQUAL. in the eyes of the law. Also, part of what makes our country so great is that it really is a huge, giant melting pot. The amount of cultures, religions, and beliefs makes it impractical and UNCONSTITUTIONAL to make a law based on religion. I don't care if Christians think homosexuality is wrong, they have no right to make laws and deny perfectly good people a right that EVERYONE ELSE HAS based on it.

I'm with jessy. Very well said.

After the last Presidential election, there was a cartoon in Time that listed some strategies the Democrats could use to do better in the next election. One of the those strategies was to neutralize the gay marriage issue by also backing gay divorce. The downside to was that it would "threaten the sanctity of the traditional broken family."

I just don't buy into the arguement that we shouldn't allow it because we never have before. If you want to start talking about traditional American values, remember that those values at one time included the right to own slaves. Traditional does not automatically equal good. Societal values do change over time.

"A hundred plus years ago blacks in this nation were not allowed to marry."

And only 41 years ago, a black person could not marry a white person (in Virginia).

So if everyone thinks it's ok who are the ones voting to restrict marriage? Around 25 states have constitutional restrictions against same-sex marriage / union. If that view is not an accurate representation of society's view, why do they keep winning?

I don't understand why we need to tell people they are not good enough to get what everyone else is getting. Like when African Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, or when women weren't allowed to vote. We are all equal, and with equal value. So yes, yes, yes.

It's awesome to see that everyone thus far seems to agree on this controversial subject.

Jessy777 well said!!

"oh bother. the only reason why this comes up in campaigns is to distract people from real issues, like international affairs - because everyone knows religion-esque issues get everyone riled up and that is all they'll focus on."

Hear hear.

It is pretty cool to see everyone on the same page here. This is one of those issues that I think is divided more on generational lines than on political alliance.

Doesn't the government have more important things to focus on than whether or not two homosexuals in love want to marry? Sheesh.

Let's look at the reasons against same sex-marriage:

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Maybe so. But some religions consider it a sin to combine meat and dairy, or to use birth control, or to have premarital sex, or to get a tattoo. But those things are not illegal.
Same-sex marriage will weaken respect for marriage, family values. How so? Two people are in love and want to start a family. Does it matter what their gender and sexual orientation is?
Same-sex marriage would lead to a slippery slope (e.g. multiple wives). I don't even know what to say. This makes no sense.
Same-sex marriage would encourage a gay lifestyle. There is no ENCOURAGING a gay lifestyle. People are either gay or they're not. It's NOT like a cult - witness gay marriage, drink the Kool-Aid, wake up gay. The only people who may be encouraged by gay marriage are closeted homosexuals. Maybe witnessing gay marriage will give them the courage and freedom to be themselves and to be proud of who they are. And that's a GOOD thing.

If we can't allow 2 people in love and who want to commit their lives to each other to marry-gay or straight-then we should just get rid of marriage all together. Marriage should be a union of 2 souls in love. It's the fundamentalists that make it a male/female issue.

Jesse77-you're great. I was just telling my husband that our government is strong because of the separation of church and state. You can see in countries where religion is the ruler, there is always conflict between religious groups. We live in a country founded on religious freedom-I wish people would learn history as it's written...not as they warp it to suit their "message".

That's "Good Ol' Boy" politics at it's best.

i'm absolutely for gay marriage. for all the reasons mentioned above and then some!

Canada's all about the gay marriage...it's time America woke up and followed suit!

Whip, that's exactly what I was going to say. My only comment is that the government does indeed have WAAAY more important topics to focus on at this point in time.

I am so proud to be counted amongst your numbers, sugar readers. I have never understood what discriminatory types are afraid of here... I'll tell you one thing, no matter how strong their numbers or tactics, theirs is and always will be a losing battle, because as long as there are human beings, there will be gay and lesbian human beings, and as long as there is a United States of America, people will fight for equality. I've been saying it since I was in junior high and I will continue saying it until things are set right: someday soon, kids will be learning about how awful we treated gay and lesbian people and they will look at us, the previous generation with sadness, just as we look back on slavery and gender discrimination. I am extremely proud to be part of this good fight and extremely proud to stand next to those who need a hand out of the shadaow of ugly, ugly discrimination.

So this is what is called a "Wedge" issue because it is expressly designed to put a wedge in between voters and take them away from truly important issues. (Which I think someone already mentioned) I totally agree with all of these posts. Of all the things wrong in the world, we are trying to legislate love? Is that really what this country is all about? I especially agree with the posts that refer to the divorce rate in this country. My fiance and I are both from divorced families and 3 of our 4 stepparents were divorced before they married our parents! Between the 2 of our families we have 9 divorces. NINE!!! This is the sacred union we have to protect? I think straight people might want to wait until that divorce rate comes down before we start lecturing about what and who threatens marriage. As for the religious aspect, my Grandma is a die hard Catholic who made me die laughing when she wisely said, "If you don't believe in gay marriage...then don't marry someone gay." Doesn't get more complicated than that.

I agree with Jessy and everyone else! This is heartwarming!

Everyone above has said it well. I wanted to single out one particular thing against the stupid "slippery slope" argument, which is this: If people who are intelligent, consenting adults want to do ANYTHING regarding their relationship(s), I do not think the government or the public have any right to interfere. I honestly don't understand the protest against polygamy except in cases where it is forced on someone, especially underage children. But if fully functional adults consent to participate in a marriage with multiple people, why shouldn't they have that right? Because it makes their tax situation complicated? That's crap. I do want to be clear that I personally think that most people, myself included, would NOT want to consent to that type of a relationship, but if others do, I have no problem with them doing so. Relationships with underage children, individuals who aren't able to make informed decisions (i.e. severely retarded people who are in the care of others), and animals are all taboo because they involve a party who can't grant their informed consent. But any relationship involving all people who CAN grant their informed consent should be legal. Of course, that includes gay couples (and in light of everything else I said in this post, gay marriage may seem to some normal and even desirable!).

The sad thing is there are people out there who think someone's sexuality and whether they should marry is more important than healthcare or immigration or the economy.

"Same-sex marriage will weaken respect for marriage, family values"

I've got two words that blow that argument straight out of the water: PAM ANDERSON.

Any questions?

I'm a woman of faith who believes that you should love and respect people where they are at despite differences of opinion. I also believe that we should strive for a balanced perspective on the origins of homosexuality. The studies that state there is a possible biological cause have been inconclusive. I do believe that the source of homosexuality could be attributed to both enviroment and biology. The jury is still out. I found an interesting article that some of you might be interested in reading http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html

While Nouveu Jackie is correct about the inconclusivity of biological "causes" of homosexuality, I find it the most interesting that we don't do studies on the biological "causes" of heterosexuality. Why is it the norm? Who made it that way? I'm a left hander and about 100 years ago I would've been forced to learn how to write with my right hand. Who made right handedness the norm? Left handers still exist. Trends change, always, as other sugars have pointed it out. I find it sad that our society is so restricitve and close-minded. In the 1920's pink was masculine and blue was feminine. I've gotten off of the subject here... but just realize that things WILL and DO change. I'm hoping sooner rather than later.

I continually find myself amazed at having to take the side of something I don't agree with just to see a balanced discussion.

First and foremost, you will not find a bigger advocate for gay marriage than me. I think everyone that has posted thus far has made really great points and it would be redundant for me to repeat them.

However, there are some serious arguments against gay marriage that are not the more trivial ones listed above. Namely, by allowing gay marriage, you also have to allow everything goes along with marriages - adoption, joint healthcare, paid maternity and paternity leave, filing taxes jointly... many things that cost employers and/or the government (and therefore, all of us who pay taxes) money. And as of now, by not letting certain segments of the population enjoy these "perks" of marriage, it is for better or for worse, saving everyone some money. So in a very real way, the more people that are allowed to be married, the more it affects every one of us. Just think about how much more it would cost small businesses to insure not just their employees, but ALL of their significant others and their families. It really does "hurt" people who aren't in their marriage, if you choose to see it that way.

Now, I want to reiterate that I in no way subscribe to the argument I made above. I think if one segment of the population is getting the "perks" of marriage, everyone should. And I think the ultimate economic impact of allowing gay marriage would be relatively small in the long run. It's just that I recently had this discussion with someone else and having them FINALLY be able to provide at least some kind of concrete argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion really caught me off guard. So, I just wanted to point out that Liberty missed some critical points to the "points against" list in her original post.

LibertySugar - I live in Denmark and while I'm not completely sure I think that the government gives evert couple 3 IVFs for free and pays for the rest if something is wrong with either person which would complicate the whole process. But some people are objecting to the fact that a lesbian couple get these benefits for free as well since the money could be spend elsewhere. I am, however, all for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation

Are we saying that these "perks" are not rights? They are rights for straight people but perks for the gay? How could that be equal rights?

Personally, I think they're rights and should be available to all. The argument I presented is that some people can view them as "perks" that they don't want to pay to provide to others who they don't feel are worthy.

right on jesse777!

Gay people are people.

Minority people are people.

Female people are people.

Shouldn't all groups of people have the same rights as, you know, other people?

(Interesting note: if you type the word people enough times, it looks very strange.)

I'm not getting deep into this debate, but WHAT is with the weak argument points AGAINST gay marriage? Those are all relatively the same argument, residing with spiritual views. There are plenty of other reasons for why gay marriage should be discouraged, besides the religously oriented.
I'm torn between the subject. My religion tells me to despise it, and I am repulsed by the idea of homosexuality, or a marriage of that nature. I wouldn't ever consider it a marriage, no matter how much they're in love, or whatever justification others bring up.
On the other hand, I think they should be given certain legal rights, without being considered a union.
I don't know...I not only have gay friends (whom I love very much), but are acquainted with other gay people, and through their example, am glad that they can't be married.

jovian our religion also tells us not to commit adultery, that no man can split asunder what God has joined, that fornication is a mortal sin, that gluttony, sloth, envy, etc are all deadly sins, and yet a lot of people commit these sins everyday. What makes homosexuality worse than fornication, aren't they equally as bad? In that sense a lot of people are sinning terribly. i am a hard core Catholic but i firmly believe in gay marriage.

"I find it the most interesting that we don't do studies on the biological "causes" of heterosexuality. Why is it the norm? Who made it that way?"

-- I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's the norm because evolution favors people who want to have sex with people they can create babies with....

I support gay marriage, too. After all, this is the land of the free, equal rights to ALL.

That's true, but just because there are sins being committed doesn't mean we should concede to them.
What makes homosexuality a mortal sin as is that in the Bible, God said that they all will be sent to Hell, lest they change their ways. It's in the book of Leviticus, 18 and 20.
If others want to believe they should be married for whatever reason, that's fine by me, but I only think they should be given certain, specific legal rights, though it probably (in an unbiased point of view) be better for the economy if they could get married.
It's a very tangled situation.

i don't know jovian i think if Jesus died for all our sins and if Hitler, Amin, Stalin etc could repent and go to heaven then someone who has followed their heart and loved someone though they are same sex has an equal shot at heaven.

I hope you're right, nyaradzom.