Marriage is absolutely something you can do. What you're trying to do is deny that same ability to those you disagree with.

currently, there is a civil procedure still called 'marriage' that those with no 'antiquated' religious beliefs can participate in

of course, it still requires some 'antiquated belief' in the idea of a man and woman joining together and 'belonging' to one another

otherwise there would be no need for it either,, noone needs anyone else to validate, document, or otherwise dictate whether they have a commitment with each other,,,


and there are those few rare breeds, Im sure, who are strictly getting married so they can have marital 'rights' like sharing assets and responsibilities equally,,,

since when did i have a problem with marriage. be very careful about twisting someone else's thoughts or beliefs

The bolded part above is what I was responding to. That made it seem like you were saying anyone who wants to get married should join in those religious beliefs to do so. Why should they do that if they're not religious?

There was no twisting anything. If you didn't mean what you said, perhaps you should have said it in a different way.

taking one sentence in a phrase or paragraph and thinking about it alone can sometimes cause the sentence to have a different meaning

if they are not religious, why would they want a part of that religion. it would be like a muslim boy wanting a Bar Mitzvah

maybe this sentence will help:
anyone who wants the antiquated religious belief of marriage, should believe in those antiquated religious beliefs

Our country is comprised of groups who try to push-forth their agendas....Each group hopes to "win" and turn their views and beliefs into the "law of the land."...Churches have agendas. And so do other groups.

I'm simply saying that many non-religious people get married. Yes, I know for some it's a very religious thing. For others it isn't. No one is forced to make it a religious ceremony. People can even go to city hall and get married.

So, saying that because it's a religious thing and that's why gay people can't get married is silly.

Of course all of that is correct assuming it is being strictly related to religious reqirements.

But in a nation that values diversity in its population, as much as the USA does, laws are not made to conform with any particular religious value. In fact, the law in our society only grants free religous exercise to the extent that such practice does not infringe on any other persons rights, or are otherwise against the rest of the law.

Therefore, individuals are free to obey and fulfill religious commitments within legal retraints, that being so, they are still expected to place government law above thier religious codes.

So when a challenge to our legal code is presented that appears to be in opposition to religious morals/values, then those people are free to voice their religious view as a valid reason to be against changing the legal code. But unless other reasons, beyond religious values, can be provided as to why the code should not be changed, then their voice may not be heard.

In the case of same-sex marriage, the most effective way for religious values to appear in the legal code, if for the religious sector to force a majority vote, in the hopes of gaining enough votes to overrule the legal challenge.

The problem with the current situation is that asking for a public vote is exactly like asking the people in 1865 to vote on making slaves free or like asking the people in 1964 to vote on abolishing discrimination through the Civil Rights Act of the year.

We don't use popular vote to determine the level of freedom individuals should have in this country. Not even the federal government can write discrimination into the law. Both of those condistions have occurred with regards to ss-marriage, which is why California's Proposition 8 is in its third round and finally at the U.S. Supreme court level and why that same court is being requested to take up the challenge to DOMA, which is in consideration.

In what way would herosexuals have to conform? What would be changing for them?

You're a little behind the facts in the issue so I'll remind you that when marriage was written into the law of this country, it was not a religious law. It was a law in which marriage was defined as a contractual agreement and no law associated with marriage, since that time, has been implemented solely based on a religious belief.

The law is meant to be held in common to provide for the greater good of a civil society in which a wide diversity of people will reside.

It's not that you have trouble getting your point across, it's that you seem to have a problem incorporating facts into your bias.

AGAIN, the contract of marriage, as set forth by the government, is only complete when considering the cascading effects of related laws which all have an effect on social connectivity. Couples who wish to marry are seeking 'equality under the law'.

There has NEVER been a conditional privilege associated with any legal aspect of marraige which required sex or children. The only law that EVER restricted sex between consenting adults were the state sodomy laws - which proved to be unconstitutional due privacy issues.

From that episode we can assume that homosexuals can consumate a marriage because sodemy is a form of sex, according to the law.

Please carefully review this information and PLEASE as questions if you do not understand and please review the facts presented with your previous views so that you can stop saying that we don't understand what you are saying.

Your point was not clearly made and for my assumptions, I apologize. However, I hope my previous reply to your post will be of some help to others who might read it.

The "Religious Right" and the Republican party definitely seem to feel that they have a "lock-down" on the institution of marriage.

I never thought I'd be in a debate over who supposedly "owns" the institution of marriage...People get married in churches all the time but still end-up in divorce courts.. Having a religious (and "God-sanctioned" ceremony) between a man and a woman is no guarantee that the marriage will last.

Yes, indeed. Most religions that have marriage ceremonies also include language of a life-long commitment which is a form of contract between the couple and their God - "let no man put assunder". But the hirearchy of those religions simply accept divorce as if it's just a fact of life.

Then those same people say that ss-marriage is what will bring the wrath of God down on our nation and that such marriages will destroy civil society and somehow diminish heterosexual marriage.

I can only call it what it is: hypocracy that seems to be invisible to those who are perpetrating the blunder.

Only in the same sense that people who didn't want women to vote "had to conform" to allowing women to vote.

People who want same sex marriage are seeking to end a form of social injustice.

If you don't want same sex marriage, don't get one.

The fact that the anti-marriage (of gays) people see this as 'having to conform' just gives evidence to the fact that they think its okay for their prejudice to rule over other peoples personal lives.

A righteous lock-down!

With far too many passionate bigots helping to carry the banner!

The anti-gay beliefs that some people strikes me as a social disease.

this is not a good analogy

when I vote, it is me in a booth DOING something MYSELF

the same SOMETHING that any other INDIVIDUAL citizen can do who is of age AND a citizen


getting MARRIED is a procedure that we PARTICIPATE in, it takes at least one other party to agree to do it WITH us and the legal authority to validate

,,voting requires no other party but ME,, that is something I DO


getting married, or becoming a partnership or corporation, or any other PROCEDURE That requires agreement between two parties is not something we INDIVIDUALLY 'do'


buying a car, for instance, requires a buyer and a seller,,,the paperwork will reflect a TRANSACTION/AGREEMENT between two people, if there is a contract

to REGISTER that car, to have it LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as your car, a government authority then validates the contract through a 'registration'


I cannot 'buy' a car, just because someone else can 'buy' a car,, this is not a RIGHT, its a contract

if someone else can meet the requirements of that contract THEN they can purchase from the buyer

the buyer placing a value on his car isnt STOPPING me from buying that car, the fact that I cant or wont meet that value is,,,,


the government defining marriage as a man and woman isnt STOPPING anyone from getting married, that fact that they cant or wont meet that definition is,,,,

this is not a good analogy

when I vote, it is me in a booth DOING something MYSELF

the same SOMETHING that any other INDIVIDUAL citizen can do who is of age AND a citizen


getting MARRIED is a procedure that we PARTICIPATE in, it takes at least one other party to agree to do it WITH us and the legal authority to validate

,,voting requires no other party but ME,, that is something I DO


getting married, or becoming a partnership or corporation, or any other PROCEDURE That requires agreement between two parties is not something we INDIVIDUALLY 'do'


buying a car, for instance, requires a buyer and a seller,,,the paperwork will reflect a TRANSACTION/AGREEMENT between two people, if there is a contract

to REGISTER that car, to have it LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as your car, a government authority then validates the contract through a 'registration'


I cannot 'buy' a car, just because someone else can 'buy' a car,, this is not a RIGHT, its a contract

if someone else can meet the requirements of that contract THEN they can purchase from the buyer

the buyer placing a value on his car isnt STOPPING me from buying that car, the fact that I cant or wont meet that value is,,,,


the government defining marriage as a man and woman isnt STOPPING anyone from getting married, that fact that they cant or wont meet that definition is,,,,

what 'ability'?

ability to have a relationship? not denied
ability to have sex? not denied
ability to be committed to each other? not denied

,,what ability that married couples have do unmarried couples not have?