I was not debating anything at all. I was answering your question.
Actually, you didn't answer my question of how civil unions somehow don't legitimize gay relationships at all (even though they give identical legal rights to those of marriage), while a simple word change ("marriage") magically causes those relationships to be legitimized.
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.
Hmm I didn't know every church in the nation had that requirement for their sacramental marriage... Anyway, you can't deny the separation of church and state and here's why: You don't need proof of a sacramental marriage in order to receive a civil marriage license.
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.
So you're against civil marriage at all, fine with me. But they do exist, separate from any religion (the government doesn't favor Catholic marriages over atheist marriages), so your religious objection to someone else's marriage who follows another religion shouldn't influence the law, sorry.
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.
Fine, let's say that federal civil unions are legally equal for the sake of argument. Given that, I still don't understand how you approve of federal civil unions, but literally the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union" somehow is a huge problem. I mean, the word "marriage" under federal law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.
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.
If there was a true separation of church and state like the Constitution guarantees, gay marriage would already be the law. The problem is, politicians don't always separate their own religious views from their decisions within the government. You're right that it simply being an opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. However, in this context you have admitted that your opinion is based completely on your religious views, which DOES make it an irrelevant opinion when we're discussing laws and policies for a nation that is home to many, many people who do not follow your religion. That's the point of a separation of church and state, so that no religion can use the law to impose its views on other people.
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.
I mean, I'm Catholic and I still don't think Catholic morals should be the basis of civil laws that everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has to obey or face punishment from the government. If a Protestant tried to make their religious laws into secular laws that I had to obey, I'd be pissed because I don't believe in them. So no, it doesn't matter that 70% of the nation identify as Christian. It doesn't give Christianity the right to oppress religious minorities under our secular government. It doesn't.
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.
I guess I misspoke, the state has a duty to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. That's the reason for hate laws and affirmative action, to counteract the unequal treatment that certain citizens face.