My feelings are this: I think marriage should, as a word, not exist. Let's make all unions that the states legalize be just that--unions. You agree to this or that partnership under the law that the state and federal governments recognize possess and guarantee certain privileges and rights. If you and your partner then want [fill in the name of a religion here] to sanctify it, that's your own problem. We just want to know if you'll be filing jointly on your taxes from now on.
And people do argue that hetero marriage should stand because it's tradition. They are the ones who are like "But that's what marriage is!" thinking back to before we had a country that refused to establish a state/federal religious background to which to appeal. There is no mention in our constitution that says which way you can or can't marry, but that's the way ministers have always done it and because ministers were the marriage makers, it's always had this religious tone to it. They use it to have their cake and eat it, too. For one thing, religion is a religious matter (even though the state licensing really nullifies that argument) therefore you can't make them marry the gays. For another, that's the way it's always been done, therefore it has the legitimacy of time (and the historical fact that such prejudices have always worked against gay marriage is conveniently ignored).
Anyway, I'm not going to beat up the strawman, though I don't think people who claim "GOD SAYS NO HOMOS" are really that far off from "NO HOMOS 'CAUSE THAT AIN'T THE WAY WE DO IT." My point is that marriage is something states regulate and religions officiate. I'm all for states regulating without bias against the sexes wishing to get married (and thereby ensuring all have the equal opportunity to marry despite varying preferences in the genitalia of their mates). Religions can officiate where they choose, but the state should make an effort to make marriage accessible to all.
no subject
And people do argue that hetero marriage should stand because it's tradition. They are the ones who are like "But that's what marriage is!" thinking back to before we had a country that refused to establish a state/federal religious background to which to appeal. There is no mention in our constitution that says which way you can or can't marry, but that's the way ministers have always done it and because ministers were the marriage makers, it's always had this religious tone to it. They use it to have their cake and eat it, too. For one thing, religion is a religious matter (even though the state licensing really nullifies that argument) therefore you can't make them marry the gays. For another, that's the way it's always been done, therefore it has the legitimacy of time (and the historical fact that such prejudices have always worked against gay marriage is conveniently ignored).
Anyway, I'm not going to beat up the strawman, though I don't think people who claim "GOD SAYS NO HOMOS" are really that far off from "NO HOMOS 'CAUSE THAT AIN'T THE WAY WE DO IT." My point is that marriage is something states regulate and religions officiate. I'm all for states regulating without bias against the sexes wishing to get married (and thereby ensuring all have the equal opportunity to marry despite varying preferences in the genitalia of their mates). Religions can officiate where they choose, but the state should make an effort to make marriage accessible to all.