There's no rational, non-secular argument against it. People always try to say they don't think gays should get the tax benefits from marriage, but I don't see why not...they pay taxes just like everyone else. In fact, gay couple tend to have higher household incomes than straight couple and pay MORE in taxes.

I completely agree. I personally don't like my government telling me whom I can or cannot marry. The government is not there to give us permission to marry, but rather simply recognize that marriage when we say we're getting married. Have it on file. Period.

Those who are opposed to gay marriage like to say snide things like "what's next? People marrying animals?"

My response to that is if the government can start telling us who we can or cannot marry, who's to say they won't start saying we have to fill out an application to date so that we can be matched via computer with someone "compatible" with us. I mean, next they can say divorce is the next biggest problem in this country, after, of course, people who are already living together and behaving as such making it official and legal. Then they can tell us we have to marry who they want us to marry, then we're not a free country any more.

I suppose I should go ahead and say for some of us (including several people I know and admire), it's not a free country right now.

As long as people love each other!

One more thing - as long as people love each other - they should be able to marry. In addition regardless of love - people deserve equal rights regardless of sexual preference.

Agreed.

For those of you who are having a hard time wrapping your heads around why the majority of American citizens oppose gay marriage, you first have to come to understand that those people truly believe homosexual activities are immoral. It's no different than laws against having sex with minors or child molestation. It simply has to do with where people draw a line in the sand and say "this is wrong and I do not want my government to support or even condone such behavior".

That's fine, but those people have to learn that there is often a difference between what is moral and what is legal, and that the government only has so many rights with regard to limiting the behavior of its citizenry.

They first and foremost have to understand the separation of church and state. Invariably in arguments like this, those against gay marriage go to the "The Bible says..." argument, with a total ignorance that the Bible is not the law of the land. True, many of our ethics and ethical code and and what not is based on Biblical principles, but it's not what our country is hinged on. Our country was founded on the principle of freedom and lack of interference by the government in personal and religious matters.

That's fine if people think it's immoral. They're certainly entitled to their opinion, and they can have it. It's not illegal, and it's not something that should be illegal. The government should not be allowed to meddle in the personal affairs of what two consenting adults do, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

And that "sanctity of marriage" garbage makes me sick too, especially when people are having affairs all around, and divorces are still around 50%, and all of that stuff. My marriage is important to me, and what two men or two women do has zero to do with my life, any more than what any straight couple does with their marriage.

Nicely written post, Joe. But there are a couple of points that I will argue against.

First, your idea of the "seperation of church and state" is a little off what the reality of it is. The only written law concerning this "seperation" is the 1st amendment to the Constitution. To paraphrase it, our government is not allowed to establish a state religion nor is it allowed to prohibit an individual's free exercise of religion. In no way does it disallow the involvement of religion or a person's religious beliefs within the structure of our government. We are free to consult our faith when constructing our political values.

You also argue that laws shouldn't interfere with consenting adults engaging in activities that do not harm others. Two crack heads getting high together aren't harming anybody, but there aren't too many individuals out there arguing to legalize crack. This once again boils down to the society's ethical standards. What is right and wrong.

My point in bringing up separation of church and state is specifically to highlight what you said. What I was trying to say is that religion cannot be our sole basis of creating laws, nor is it in most cases. Of course one can consult their faith in constructing political values, but also they have to take into account someone else's values that may run counter to theirs. To do otherwise risks running into semantic arguments about who's religion is the correct one.

My point is that gay marriage isn't even an issue of what is right or wrong necessarily. There are plenty of things I think are morally wrong that are legal. Smoking is one of those. I find it morally wrong that someone can willfully do extreme harm to their bodies by smoking, but I also know that they have the right to do that if they want to. I neither have to understand the appeal of it, nor approve of the act itself to believe that anyone who wants to do so has every right to do so.

It's a matter of keeping government from becoming intrusive in our personal lives, and protecting our liberty.

Well, a civil union is different than marriage. So if you break it down to semantics, it's interesting that the government can grant marriage licenses.

I have always understood the word marriage to be something that comes from religious institutions whereas civil unions are something that comes from government institutions. So, it is difficult for me to understand how the government can grant both. Thoughts? I'm not sure about this.

That's certainly interesting and something I've not considered. I do agree with you that if a marriage is a religious institution the government should have no control over it. It is a very technical distinction, where the government would just grant a "civil union" license rather than a "marriage" license. It would be really nothing more than the government changing their stationary, so to speak.

But in more general terms, I find it interesting for those who oppose to say "no, gay people can't be married, but they can have civil unions," and arguing that it's virtually the same thing. Well, if it's the same thing, why can't they just get married?

Right Joe! And I think most gays hardly care which is which, except for the ones who are extremely religious. And they're getting married in churches that allow it already. But can any of you see Indiana allowing civil unions? Whoa the outcry would be thunderous! Why? I don't get it.

The thing about religion is, bigots pick and choose. The same part of the bible that sais 2 men shall not lay together also sais you can't wear 2 different kinds of cloth in the same garment. The minister at our church went through a whole list of things like that - if you're going to say "The bible sais no to gays" then they should be saying no to a host of other things. Come on, people, people "honestly" felt like african-american people shouldn't marry whites or have the same rights not that long ago. It was completely within the law to discriminate against inter-racial marriage, but who nowadays would do so? Bigots only.