Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
the problem is that spiritual views are being trampled by anti-Christian-philosophy types. I don't think 'marriage' should be in the hands of the sate; if the state would like to recognize various communal property contracts, that's fine, and if you are 'married' you can indicate by what church/whatever and that's that.
as for this whole deal, i support constitutional amendment that makes the issue of 'marriage' the purview of various state legislatures.
Hey Mr Inconsistent. You say in one sentence, "I don't think 'marriage' should be in the hands of the state" and in the very next sentence you say "I support [making] "marriage" the purview of [the state]".
I agree that marriage should not be in the hands of the state, that a "license" from the state should not be required to enter into marriage, and that there should be no fiscal "reward" (i.e., tax breaks) for entering into a marriage. However, I fail to see how removing marriage from the hands of the state will benefit you, who is opposed to gay marriages (if the state has no hand in it, then any church or institution that wants to marry gay couples could do so). I don't see how removing marriage from the state's hands could help to "maintain the traditional form of marriage" which is/was your primary argument against gay marriage. I don't see how removing marriage from the state's hands could help reduce the amount of extra-marital sex, or how it could help reduce the spread of STDs, which were more of your inept reasons to justify your hateful and discriminatory and dare I say it, bigoted, views.
So, what's the deal with you? Do you want marriage in the hands of the state or not? And why or why not?