The problem is that there is a vast majority of benefits for married couples, that the state/fed issues. If it is a religious ceremony, then this shouldn't be so should it? If it isn't, then there really should be nothing stopping same-sex marriage from happening.

One example of is how couples can have problems just visiting their partner in the hospital after decades of dedication to them. Visitation is a right permitted to spouses and families. http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-lesbian-denied-hospital-visitation-as-girlfriend-died

This post was edited by XxXHellFireXxX on Dec 24 2009 12:22am

Wouldn't it be much more fair to just end these benefits? It wouldn't matter if two gay people, three straight people, etc wanted to get married as nobody would have incentive to stop them.

That was one of the points yes. Separation of church and state matters.

Started reading your post but got confused towards the end, my bad.

The ban on gay marriage has nothing to do with the separation clause of the Constitution .

Why indeed? I suppose because individuals decided it should.

For matters of convenience I suppose it makes sense, but I'd rather they stay out of it entirely.

This type of logic is why republicans will never win any debates on UHC, "redistribution of wealth", etc.

I explained why marriage is a public matter as well as a private one, not whether I agreed with it. Nor am I a member of the Republican Party.

You guys always resort to the "but that's the way it is" position everytime you can't think of a real position. That's not the point of PaRD or any other debate setting.

What in Gods name ever made you think these are debates ?