Odin wrote:
If i understand it correctly it is because pro-gay marriage people don't want churches to be able to discriminate on the issue of sexuality, and people against it don't want churches to be sued for denying "rights" to gays.

I would agree with getting the government out of it altogether, as long as churches are allowed to "discriminate" without punishment.

swstephe wrote:


From what I understand about the law, a church is a kind of "private club" and can discriminate against whoever they choose, especially if they contradict their church doctrines, as long as they comply with public laws, (I was at a church service where the pastor complained about having to put in a handicap accessible ramp as "persecution"). Churches discriminate all the time. Most practices are not open to non-members. For several years, I went to Mormon churches where I was not allowed to take their form of "communion" because I wasn't the right kind of Christian. Many Jewish practices are not open to non-Jews. A Mosque would not allow a non-Muslim to pray or read from the Koran to the congregation. I've personally seen a person with a mental illness removed from a Christian church for being disruptive.

My best friend from my first 2 years of high school is gay. He is currently legally married to his partner and he is politically active. I know his family is strictly religious and has disowned him for the past 20 years. He recently was able to make some amends and visit his father who was seriously ill in the hospital. He has no interest in being a member of any church. As far as he is concerned, the church's position against what he feels is natural is proof enough against the validity of churches. What he seeks are the same financial and economic benefits that traditional married couples enjoy, with some social acceptance that is granted toward married couples, but not couples under civil unions. A few times, I've corrected a few of his assumptions -- he tends to think of the situation as fighting for a new right, rather than a right granted to all people that is being denied under special circumstances.

davidasearles wrote:
Why? All for the sake of the state not having to say that two people of the same sex can be married?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The early history of marriage was that the inception of a marriage was neither a state nor a religious event. It was an agreement between two families. The recording of a marriage usually incidental as when a man was partly identified by whom he was married to, or if a woman owned property (usually through death of her husband), who she had been married to.

davidasearles wrote:
What you seem to be saying that same sex in domestic relationships ought to be equal to domestic relationships between same sex partners but only if we get rid of the concept of the marriage contract.

I'm pretty sure that the conservative base (small c conservative) of society would rather accept same sex marriage rather than getting rid of the marriage contract altogether. New Hampshire is big on libertarianism but the question of getting rid of the marriage contract never seemed to come up (that I'm aware of) when its legislature voted to allow same sex marriage.