If you're admitting that it is a completely religious argument (the argument for civil unions and against civil marriage), then there's literally no debating: That argument should not be taken into consideration.
I was not debating anything at all. I was answering your question.
There is a separation of church and state, period. And what you're ignoring is the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. The state is NOT involved in sacramental marriage, which churches are free to control, but it IS involved in civil marriage, which is completely separate from any religion and deals only with legal rights such as filing taxes, etc. If you're against civil marriage in general, then I don't know why you're only singling out the same-sex aspect of it...
This is not true. Without a state license you cannot have a sacramental marriage, period. This is a fact.
So no, I am not ignoring anything.
I am against civil marriage in all cases. As I stated, the government should never have gotten into the marriage business. Since they are now, and this is not going to change. We have to work with what we have.
No... a civil union does not ensure equal constitutional rights. New Jersey is a prime example of this.
This is not what I was referring to. Since you are new here, I don’t mind repeating what I have said many times before.
A civil union recognized by the state and honored by the Federal government constitutionally must be recognized by all states as a legal and binding contract, with all the benefits of marriage.
Your traditional opinion is irrelevant because it is no more or less valid than anyone else's opinion about marriage and family, whether traditional, progressive, or whatever.
If it were not valid gay marriage would already be the law, it however is not. So yes it is just as relevant as anyone else’s opinion.
Just because it is an “opinion” in and of itself, does not make it irrelevant.
It doesn't matter what your God made a union because there may be other religions that disagree, as well as people who don't adhere to your religion that disagree. Your religious views are no more valid than mine. I'm not even debating about the union put together by your God or my God or anyone else's God.
You asked the question. All I did was explain it.
As for your view, that’s cool and you are welcome to it, but this alone does not make you correct. Fact is 70+ percent of this country identifies them selves as Christian. This alone makes it matter. We do have a secular government, but we have a predominantly Christian population.
Any large block of voters is free to vote their conscience on the issues. The victory of anti-gay marriage proponents in CA, should be ample proof of this. So what my God says certainly does matter to me, and because it also matters to 224,437,959 Christian Americans, it should matter to you as well.
What I am talking about, in fact, IS the union put together by the state, which is why all this religious talk is irrelevant because church and state are separate.
Only in that laws cannot be passed based on religion, this is not the case as no law is being passed.
Since the state has a duty to treat all citizens equally, same-sex CIVIL marriage should be legal. There is no religious obligation to recognize civil marriage now, and there won't be if same-sex couples are included in civil marriage laws.
Where did this silly notion of “the state has a duty to treat all citizens equally” come from? If this were the case “hate laws” and “affirmative action” would not exist, so no the state is under no “obligation.”
I agree that their is no religious obligation to recognize civil marriage now. Since government can pass no law forcing churches to accept this, it is not really a concern.
We will see about the rest.
