One of the biggest faux pas our founding fathers made in regards to separation of church and state is they, along with all of the politicians that have followed them, was making the licensing of marriage into a state-run policy. Marriage was created by religion and religious people. It was created by religion way back when to promote morality in most societies. Our government continued this religious tradition and made it into something that guarantees additional rights to married people. So now we have it to where people who do not believe in conventional marriage are not allowed some of these rights.

So here we are today with the gay marriage debate. It's my opinion that the government should stay out of consenting adults' bedrooms but still guarantee equal rights, including the ones they give to straight married people. Give marriage back to the people that created it and who believe in what it actually is and always has been. And while your at it recognize the alternative partnerships that exist and extend the tax breaks and other legal benefits to them.

There was a time when I wasn't quite as open minded about this...but after examining the facts and paying attention to other's points of view on this I've changed my mind quite a bit.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

If that is the case, then government should also have to stop giving benefits of any kind, including tax cuts, to married couples in particular. If it is none of the government's business, then it's none of the government's business. Though frankly I do see some purpose to a legal contract for keeping couples together except under strong enough circumstances that they're willing to go through the trouble of divorce and admit to breach of contract regardless of religion.
Marriage predates Christianity and is almost a cultural universal. The days in which it was founded in its earliest versions (nothing like those of today, or the traditional Christian ones for that matter) were in a context of religion and government being part of the same institution. Marriages have always existed for the purpose of social stability, people being forced by contract to take care of one another is the purpose that survives today as well as any children born or adopted. The really traditional versions were only partly that and mostly just a way of keeping track of whose kids were whose and how the clan property would be moved around. Actually most of the truly traditional reasons for marriage are obsolete in this day and age. It was not about love until fairly recently. I would suggest it's only purpose is to make two people take care of one another and any offspring. It does have the effect of building responsibility.
I could personally care less for whether government is involved in marriage or not. But to claim marriage is simply a creation of religion is false. It was created in a context where religion was government. And to think that what we call traditional marriage is really the oldest and most enduring model and that it has not changed is also false. Plus if government is going to get out of it, it had better be completely turned into a symbolic ritual and not an advantage for people in organized religious groups (even though I know most churches would still marry nonreligious people who pay them and don't embarass them).

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Bravo, Sick!

A test of open-mindedness is whether evidence can shift your position. In my time posting here, I've found that I've grown more measured on most issues, even shifting rightward on some -- while reinforcing my beliefs in other areas. Which really ought to be the true purpose of exposing yourself to alternate or opposing viewpoints.

On this issue I came here from the perspective of "gay marriage -- of course!" But since then I've come to share the view that the problem isn't marriage, it's the government's involvement in it.

Now... *how* do we get the government out of the marriage business?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Once the government sticks its tentacles into something it really hates to let go.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

Like you said it was created by religious law, religion was the government that created it. But our constitution clearly states that we are not to base our laws on religion. Yet marriage is something that is one of the most fundamental sacraments of the Christian faith. Not only that, by granting marriage licenses to two people, we discriminate against other religions that allow a man to marry multiple wives etc. A symbolic ritual is exactly what the process of marriage should be in a country that who's laws are supposed to be seperate from any relious beliefs.

Of course I'm probably being extremely idealistic in saying the government should quit licensing marriage since nobody even speaks about such a thing in gay marriage debate. It seems that people either want only heterosexual marriage to be licensed or both heterosexual and homosexual. I still say neither should be a recognized as legal binding. Sign a contract of some sort if you want to be held accountable by each other.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

If I was a theist I would not want the government to control marriage issues.

Because then that puts the government (not my church) in control of what types of marriage are legitimate. That would make me very nervous as a theist.

The government can be a powerful tool in extending the reach of your religion, but it is a double edged sword.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

If its theist controlled, who decides what a marriage is? Couldnt a Catholic priest say that the "bond" between two jews, or between a catholic and a jew isnt a real marriage. Or jews say the other way around. Funny, kinda.