Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[bluethread]

I use the word 'hiding' to mean withholding information. Perhaps to your disliking, you don't get to decide what's relevant but rather the TOPIC post (post #1) does. My question to you in regards to your religion is within the scope of the topic.

I also don't see or agree that something being irrelevant would inhibit you from giving a straight answer. You could've given a straight answer if you wanted to but it took me pressing for it to finally get it out of you.

This is silly. As I have told you several times now, I was in a conversation regarding homosexual marrage as a legal matter and did not want to be misunderstood in that conversation, primarily because there had been several misunderstanding that had taken place in that discussion already. You may very well had believed that discussion was winding down, but that does not mean that I had that impression. As I have said before. if you believe I am being deceptive for some nefarious or outright lying, I'm not sure what I can do about that. Quite frankly, I'm to the point that I don't think I could care much less. It is my impression that nothing I say from here on is going to matter one way or the other.

If his [Bluethread] religious view is disguised to appear rational, then it must not be rational.

I disagree. If it were really rational then it wouldn't need to be disguised (as in something being portrayed as something else). And by appearing rational I'm referring to really only disagreeing on gay marriage because of your religion but yet you still try to offer whatever secular reasons you can grasp for. Perhaps using 'secular' or non-religion, as the Constitution requires on this matter, is a better word.

Emphasis Mine

Can you tell me how the highlighted part differs from what I said? That was the context in the prior discussion. It may not have been directly related to you initial question, but, as I said, that is what was on my mind at the time. If you don't wish to believe that, that is not my problem.

If that is the case, can it not be disproven on rational grounds.?

It's not a matter of disproving but rather just a lack of evidence if all you got is religion. As of yet, I haven't seen you give a position or offer any logical reason as to why gay marriage should be banned.

The question that I was discussing was whether or not it should be legally recognized, not whether it should be banned. With regard to it being banned, I thought I made that clear. Whatever someone wish to do within their gates is not my concern.

Now if it is indeed a rational view, why does it matter if it may also be his religious view? Are all religious views somehow irrational? I don't recall seeing him make anything look scientific. Are all views by definition more rational if they look scientific?

All religious views that are not backed by logic or evidence are irrational. Keep in mind, this is not the same as false, but could simply mean unproven or unprovable. But when there is evidence that supports gay couples as causing no harm, then I question why hold on to a position that LACKS evidence such as religious dogma.

So what? I was not presenting my religious views, but enguiring regarding definitions, purposes and the legal precident. I also do not recall saying that harm was caused.

How is it that his religious views have already made him against gay marriage as public policy?

I never claimed this was you specifically but only offered that as speculation as to why you couldn't give a straight answer to my simple question. I'd also have to press you more on your belief to get this out of you assuming that you'd be honest. For instance, are Adonai's morals relative or do they apply to everyone? If they apply to everyone, and that is your belief system as you claim, then how could you support banning gay marriage as personal standard and not also a public policy standard?

I believe that I invited you to make such inquiries, but you turned me down. I can't find the specific post, but if I didn't then, I do now. If you wish to discuss my regious views, I am willing to do so. However, if you think i am some devious liar, I don't know hy you are asking me anything.

Does his apparent unwillingness to recognize homosexual marrage in his home mean that he has already determined that public policy should follow his personal preferences? Oh right, homosexuals also want to make it acceptable to have sex in public because they do it at home. Give him a break.

Your question here is a red herring. My dispute with you was about you not being able to give a straight answer in regards to your religious position. We can speculate the reason why is because that is the only reason you have to ban it publically. Isn't Adonai against gay sex wherever it's done, publically or privately? I don't see why it's impossible for someone to want to apply their personal standard as public policy esp. considering my earlier points about some Christians doing that by voting based on their religion.

You don't need to speculate. Hello , I am giving you a straight answer, in fact, I believe I have invited you to inquire. I have not said I would ban it publicly. The fact that one can hold a standard in one's homes and at the same time recognizes that there is another standard to which one must is also abide by in public is not a red herring. It is how people commonly live in a multicultursal society. What you are proposing is a red herring, because I am not "some Christians". I know you said that you were not talking about me specifically. However, you appear to be applying it to me now.

I also didn't notice him refusing to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy. Of course they do. So what? I don't think he [Bluethread] ever said that a majority vote made public policy right. Maybe we should be focusing on what public policy should be rather than demagoguing his personal religious views.

Had you given a straight answer about your religious views, then I wouldn't have had to question the reasons behind your position on public policy. And this is especially considering that you haven't really offered your position here (for or against gay marriage).

Are you insisting that I be bigotted and present a position before establishing the relevant information?

[Angel]

I use the word 'hiding' to mean withholding information. Perhaps to your disliking, you don't get to decide what's relevant but rather the TOPIC post (post #1) does. My question to you in regards to your religion is within the scope of the topic.

I also don't see or agree that something being irrelevant would inhibit you from giving a straight answer. You could've given a straight answer if you wanted to but it took me pressing for it to finally get it out of you.

This is silly. As I have told you several times now, I was in a conversation regarding homosexual marrage as a legal matter and did not want to be misunderstood in that conversation, primarily because there had been several misunderstanding that had taken place in that discussion already. You may very well had believed that discussion was winding down, but that does not mean that I had that impression. As I have said before. if you believe I am being deceptive for some nefarious or outright lying, I'm not sure what I can do about that. Quite frankly, I'm to the point that I don't think I could care much less. It is my impression that nothing I say from here on is going to matter one way or the other.

Well in a sense ACTIONS speak louder than words but since this is a forum then we can say your postings here count as action. I don't believe you would've been misunderstood if people, including yourself, took the time to consider the context. I asked you a question specifically about RELIGION where all can see. Your action to not provide a straight answer in the context of a question about RELIGION is where your credibility begins to diminish with me. Even as you said, bias can be on both sides so it isn't about you saying that you have a religious position, it's about you attempting to disguise or hide that fact which raises question.

If that is the case, can it not be disproven on rational grounds.?

It's not a matter of disproving but rather just a lack of evidence if all you got is religion. As of yet, I haven't seen you give a position or offer any logical reason as to why gay marriage should be banned.

The question that I was discussing was whether or not it should be legally recognized, not whether it should be banned. With regard to it being banned, I thought I made that clear. Whatever someone wish to do within their gates is not my concern.

I understand. Isn't it Adonai's concern and if he sees it as wrong, do you see it as wrong, as well? So in that sense you are against gay marriage/sex, right?

How is it that his religious views have already made him against gay marriage as public policy?

I never claimed this was you specifically but only offered that as speculation as to why you couldn't give a straight answer to my simple question. I'd also have to press you more on your belief to get this out of you assuming that you'd be honest. For instance, are Adonai's morals relative or do they apply to everyone? If they apply to everyone, and that is your belief system as you claim, then how could you support banning gay marriage as personal standard and not also a public policy standard?

I believe that I invited you to make such inquiries, but you turned me down. I can't find the specific post, but if I didn't then, I do now. If you wish to discuss my regious views, I am willing to do so. However, if you think i am some devious liar, I don't know hy you are asking me anything.

I'm not interested in discussing why homosexuality is wrong based on religion solely. I was interested in knowing if gay sex/marriage is wrong according to your religious belief. After finding out that your belief is based on the Bible, then your beliefs should square with what it says on the matter of homosexuality and that's the issue I'd discuss. To my understanding, if gay sex/marriage is wrong, then you can't call it right or moral or be for it even if it is outside of your gates.

Does his apparent unwillingness to recognize homosexual marrage in his home mean that he has already determined that public policy should follow his personal preferences? Oh right, homosexuals also want to make it acceptable to have sex in public because they do it at home. Give him a break.

Your question here is a red herring. My dispute with you was about you not being able to give a straight answer in regards to your religious position. We can speculate the reason why is because that is the only reason you have to ban it publically. Isn't Adonai against gay sex wherever it's done, publically or privately? I don't see why it's impossible for someone to want to apply their personal standard as public policy esp. considering my earlier points about some Christians doing that by voting based on their religion.

You don't need to speculate. Hello , I am giving you a straight answer, in fact, I believe I have invited you to inquire. I have not said I would ban it publicly. The fact that one can hold a standard in one's homes and at the same time recognizes that there is another standard to which one must is also abide by in public is not a red herring. It is how people commonly live in a multicultursal society. What you are proposing is a red herring, because I am not "some Christians". I know you said that you were not talking about me specifically. However, you appear to be applying it to me now.

You are giving me a straight answer after the fact of me having to press you. The damage is already done so you can't pretend that you've been straight forward all along and expect me to accept your postings without question.

I understand that you believe that other people have different standards from you but that doesn't take away from the fact that you believe that those other standards are wrong when they don't square your God's rules.

I also didn't notice him refusing to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy. Of course they do. So what? I don't think he [Bluethread] ever said that a majority vote made public policy right. Maybe we should be focusing on what public policy should be rather than demagoguing his personal religious views.

Had you given a straight answer about your religious views, then I wouldn't have had to question the reasons behind your position on public policy. And this is especially considering that you haven't really offered your position here (for or against gay marriage).

Are you insisting that I be bigotted and present a position before establishing the relevant information?

I was referring to your reluctance to not offer a position on if gay marriage should be legally recognized or not. You post as if you have no position on the matter but yet hold religious views that speak of gay sex and marriage as being wrong, views that you did not want to answer for initially. Like I said, when someone doesn't want to answer something in a straight way and I have to press them for information, they begin to lose credibility with me. I shouldn't have to play hide and go seek with you.

[bluethread]

Well in a sense ACTIONS speak louder than words but since this is a forum then we can say your postings here count as action. I don't believe you would've been misunderstood if people, including yourself, took the time to consider the context. I asked you a question specifically about RELIGION where all can see. Your action to not provide a straight answer in the context of a question about RELIGION is where your credibility begins to diminish with me. Even as you said, bias can be on both sides so it isn't about you saying that you have a religious position, it's about you attempting to disguise or hide that fact which raises question.

If I recall correctly, you asked me about my personal religious views because you believe they somehow effect what I had posted. I was posting about government recogition of homosexual marrage. Therefore, I did not consider it relevant. (Is there an echo in here.) Once I stated my personal religious viewpoint, you immediately stated that I had not presented anything but that. To some extent that is true, because I was attempting to define the parameters of the discussion. Therefore, I had not stated a position. If you wish to see that as hiding, then that is up to you. I prefer to focus more on what is being said than who is saying it.

The question that I was discussing was whether or not it should be legally recognized, not whether it should be banned. With regard to it being banned, I thought I made that clear. Whatever someone wish to do within their gates is not my concern.

I understand. Isn't it Adonai's concern and if he sees it as wrong, do you see it as wrong, as well? So in that sense you are against gay marriage/sex, right?

First, Adonai says nothing about homosexual marrage. In fact, I don't even think the term marrage appears anywhere in any translation of the Scriptures. Therefore, it would be important to come to some agreement on what marrage is, before one could begin to discuss the issuue, let alone take a position. That said, yes I believe that Adonai does not approve of homosexual behavior. Therefore, within my gates, no such behavior is permitted.

I'm not interested in discussing why homosexuality is wrong based on religion solely. I was interested in knowing if gay sex/marriage is wrong according to your religious belief. After finding out that your belief is based on the Bible, then your beliefs should square with what it says on the matter of homosexuality and that's the issue I'd discuss. To my understanding, if gay sex/marriage is wrong, then you can't call it right or moral or be for it even if it is outside of your gates.

I never called it right or moral. I only discusssed whther it is appropriate to have it recognized by the governement. However, here you are making a huge jump. Adonai also does not approve of people speaking in His name without His direct approval, either. Therefore, it is Adonai who will bless or curse those outside my gates, as He sees fit.

You are giving me a straight answer after the fact of me having to press you. The damage is already done so you can't pretend that you've been straight forward all along and expect me to accept your postings without question.

I don't expect my postings to be accepted without question. I never have. However, I do find it counter productive to presume that I am making positions I have not taken. I notice that yu did not ask me if I was Muslim. Maybe I'm a Muslim, pretending to be a Christian, peretending to have an objective discussion. Maybe it would be more productive if we were to just focus on the issues, inquiries and comments that are being made and not so much on who is making them.

I understand that you believe that other people have different standards from you but that doesn't take away from the fact that you believe that those other standards are wrong when they don't square your God's rules.

So? If they do not respect Adonai, why would I make such an argument? Oh, maybe that is a good reason not to bring it up.

Are you insisting that I be bigotted and present a position before establishing the relevant information?

I was referring to your reluctance to not offer a position on if gay marriage should be legally recognized or not. You post as if you have no position on the matter but yet hold religious views that speak of gay sex and marriage as being wrong, views that you did not want to answer for initially. Like I said, when someone doesn't want to answer something in a straight way and I have to press them for information, they begin to lose credibility with me. I shouldn't have to play hide and go seek with you.

If one were being offered a summer vacation, one might wonder which clothes that one should pack. Until I know the conditions where that one is going, I can not really take a position on that. I can insist up and down that everyone I have known wares swimware in the summer time. However, if that one finds themselves spending the fourth of July in Tiera Del Fuego(land of the fire), my advise will be totally wrong. The fact that I personnally believe that it is wrong to vacation in Tierra Del Fuego in July is not really relevant, since that decision is not under consideration. The fact that it is rather close to the Antarctic Circle, is relevant. Therefore, my withholding information regarding my personal preference for summer attire would be more a matter of prudence than deception. If that person then accused me of expecting them to wear swim wear rather than an arctic coat, because I wished to know something about where they were going and I had not previously disclosed that I thought vacationing in Tierra Del Fuego in July was a bad idea, I would consider that to be a little paraniod also.

[Angel]

Well in a sense ACTIONS speak louder than words but since this is a forum then we can say your postings here count as action. I don't believe you would've been misunderstood if people, including yourself, took the time to consider the context. I asked you a question specifically about RELIGION where all can see. Your action to not provide a straight answer in the context of a question about RELIGION is where your credibility begins to diminish with me. Even as you said, bias can be on both sides so it isn't about you saying that you have a religious position, it's about you attempting to disguise or hide that fact which raises question.

If I recall correctly, you asked me about my personal religious views because you believe they somehow effect what I had posted. I was posting about government recogition of homosexual marrage. Therefore, I did not consider it relevant. (Is there an echo in here.) Once I stated my personal religious viewpoint, you immediately stated that I had not presented anything but that. To some extent that is true, because I was attempting to define the parameters of the discussion. Therefore, I had not stated a position. If you wish to see that as hiding, then that is up to you. I prefer to focus more on what is being said than who is saying it.

Like I said before, something being irrelevant (as you throught) doesn't suddenly inhibit your ability to give a straight answer. Saying that it does is an excuse, at best! Please refer to pg. 24, post #203 which is where I asked about your MORAL view on homosexual relationships/sex. I brought up religion because religion is among one of the strongest influences on people's moral beliefs. You could've offered your position by giving a straight answer and if anyone accused you of being a religious zealot then you could've just brought up that bias can be on both sides. You did that just fine after you finally gave a straight answer.

To date, I didn't see anyone calling you a religious fanatic just because you had a religious position. I only ASKED you about your position and only suspected that you were hiding something AFTER you gave me NON-straight answers.

The question that I was discussing was whether or not it should be legally recognized, not whether it should be banned. With regard to it being banned, I thought I made that clear. Whatever someone wish to do within their gates is not my concern.

I understand. Isn't it Adonai's concern and if he sees it as wrong, do you see it as wrong, as well? So in that sense you are against gay marriage/sex, right?

First, Adonai says nothing about homosexual marrage. In fact, I don't even think the term marrage appears anywhere in any translation of the Scriptures. Therefore, it would be important to come to some agreement on what marrage is, before one could begin to discuss the issuue, let alone take a position. That said, yes I believe that Adonai does not approve of homosexual behavior. Therefore, within my gates, no such behavior is permitted.

So you believe that same-sex behavior is immoral not just for yourself but also when others engage in it. And it was this bit of info. that I could not even get out of you before for whatever reasons you chose to hide or disguise it.

I'm not interested in discussing why homosexuality is wrong based on religion solely. I was interested in knowing if gay sex/marriage is wrong according to your religious belief. After finding out that your belief is based on the Bible, then your beliefs should square with what it says on the matter of homosexuality and that's the issue I'd discuss. To my understanding, if gay sex/marriage is wrong, then you can't call it right or moral or be for it even if it is outside of your gates.

I never called it right or moral. I only discusssed whther it is appropriate to have it recognized by the governement. However, here you are making a huge jump. Adonai also does not approve of people speaking in His name without His direct approval, either. Therefore, it is Adonai who will bless or curse those outside my gates, as He sees fit.

I was not asserting that you opposed gay marriage based on religious reasons. I was ASKING you about your religious position. It was only AFTER your initial responses of not giving me straight answers that I suspected that you were likely one of those who oppose gay marriage becuz of religious reasons but try to disguise that. When someone is trying to hide something, you expect me to put 100% stock in what they're saying?

You are giving me a straight answer after the fact of me having to press you. The damage is already done so you can't pretend that you've been straight forward all along and expect me to accept your postings without question.

I don't expect my postings to be accepted without question. I never have. However, I do find it counter productive to presume that I am making positions I have not taken. I notice that yu did not ask me if I was Muslim. Maybe I'm a Muslim, pretending to be a Christian, peretending to have an objective discussion. Maybe it would be more productive if we were to just focus on the issues, inquiries and comments that are being made and not so much on who is making them.

To establish credibility and validity, I don't go by who is saying something but rather on WHAT they're saying. When someone is giving me wishy-washy answers like, may or may not this and that be for this or that, I can only question this. I don't doubt that some people rely on their religious belief for public policy so even if you told me you didn't do that then I would still be a bit skeptical due to how you answered questions about your belief.

And also, I wouldn't ask you if you were a Muslim but I'd ask if you're the son of a politican.

I understand that you believe that other people have different standards from you but that doesn't take away from the fact that you believe that those other standards are wrong when they don't square your God's rules.

So? If they do not respect Adonai, why would I make such an argument? Oh, maybe that is a good reason not to bring it up.

Are you insisting that I be bigotted and present a position before establishing the relevant information?

I was referring to your reluctance to not offer a position on if gay marriage should be legally recognized or not. You post as if you have no position on the matter but yet hold religious views that speak of gay sex and marriage as being wrong, views that you did not want to answer for initially. Like I said, when someone doesn't want to answer something in a straight way and I have to press them for information, they begin to lose credibility with me. I shouldn't have to play hide and go seek with you.

If one were being offered a summer vacation, one might wonder which clothes that one should pack. Until I know the conditions where that one is going, I can not really take a position on that. I can insist up and down that everyone I have known wares swimware in the summer time. However, if that one finds themselves spending the fourth of July in Tiera Del Fuego(land of the fire), my advise will be totally wrong. The fact that I personnally believe that it is wrong to vacation in Tierra Del Fuego in July is not really relevant, since that decision is not under consideration. The fact that it is rather close to the Antarctic Circle, is relevant. Therefore, my withholding information regarding my personal preference for summer attire would be more a matter of prudence than deception. If that person then accused me of expecting them to wear swim wear rather than an arctic coat, because I wished to know something about where they were going and I had not previously disclosed that I thought vacationing in Tierra Del Fuego in July was a bad idea, I would consider that to be a little paraniod also.

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

[bluethread]

Like I said before, something being irrelevant (as you throught) doesn't suddenly inhibit your ability to give a straight answer. Saying that it does is an excuse, at best! Please refer to pg. 24, post #203 which is where I asked about your MORAL view on homosexual relationships/sex. I brought up religion because religion is among one of the strongest influences on people's moral beliefs. You could've offered your position by giving a straight answer and if anyone accused you of being a religious zealot then you could've just brought up that bias can be on both sides. You did that just fine after you finally gave a straight answer.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. :yapyap:

To date, I didn't see anyone calling you a religious fanatic just because you had a religious position. I only ASKED you about your position and only suspected that you were hiding something AFTER you gave me NON-straight answers.

I see what appears to be someone who is ignoring the topic by rambling on about some imagined ulterior motive.

So you believe that same-sex behavior is immoral not just for yourself but also when others engage in it. And it was this bit of info. that I could not even get out of you before for whatever reasons you chose to hide or disguise it.

Within my gates, yes. Sorry I did not disclose all of the factors of my belief system. However, when I offered to discuss this with you declined, twice. In the interests of full disclosure I am also circumcised. Is it necessary for me to show you so you will knw I am not lying about this?

I was not asserting that you opposed gay marriage based on religious reasons. I was ASKING you about your religious position. It was only AFTER your initial responses of not giving me straight answers that I suspected that you were likely one of those who oppose gay marriage becuz of religious reasons but try to disguise that. When someone is trying to hide something, you expect me to put 100% stock in what they're saying?

No, I fully expect you to continue to ignore the topic by rambling on and on about how you believe it is dishonest for me to inquire regarding the topic without taking a position.

To establish credibility and validity, I don't go by who is saying something but rather on WHAT they're saying. When someone is giving me wishy-washy answers like, may or may not this and that be for this or that, I can only question this. I don't doubt that some people rely on their religious belief for public policy so even if you told me you didn't do that then I would still be a bit skeptical due to how you answered questions about your belief.

So, what's the point?

And also, I wouldn't ask you if you were a Muslim but I'd ask if you're the son of a politican.

So, you don't mind if I should follow a belief system where some believe that homosexuals should be beheaded, but you do mind if I might be the son of a politican? Sorry, I did not disclose whether or not I am related to a lawyer. It sounds like being a lawyer's son is a serious threat.

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

[Autodidact]

The question that I was discussing was whether or not it should be legally recognized, not whether it should be banned. With regard to it being banned, I thought I made that clear. Whatever someone wish to do within their gates is not my concern.

...You don't need to speculate. Hello , I am giving you a straight answer, in fact, I believe I have invited you to inquire. I have not said I would ban it publicly. The fact that one can hold a standard in one's homes and at the same time recognizes that there is another standard to which one must is also abide by in public is not a red herring. It is how people commonly live in a multicultursal society.

If I understand bluethread correctly, I think this is a very reasonable, in fact the only reasonable position for a religious person who believes that same sex marriage is prohibited by his religious views.* If you think same-sex marriage is prohibited, don't practice it. That is all (I think) that blue thread is saying.

I cannot think of any non-religious marriage to prohibit it, and apparently neither can bluethread, so we seem to be in agreement on that issue.

*whatever bluethread's religion is, you could have a separate conversation, if you wanted, as to whether it should ban same-sex marriage, according to its tenets, whatever they may be.

[Autodidact]

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

Well I'm hoping you're not married then.

[bluethread]

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

Well I'm hoping you're not married then.

There are many people who have been married for a long time, who have seen the effects of the changes in the laws related to marrage since then and feel those changes have undermined their marrage contract. That may be why some oppose any further changes in the marrage laws. They believe doing so will further undermine their marrage contracts.

[Vanguard]

It appears that marrage, as used in this thread, refers to a relationship formally recognized by a governing authority. In order to determine whether such a formal recognition is necessary, one must determine what purpose it serves that is of value to the governing authority. Therefore, what purpose does recognizing marage between persons of the same sex serve for the governing authority?

Could you return to this initial posting? I am curious what you mean by your statement that the governing authority must have a purpose behind setting the limitations on what arrangements should be considered a legal marriage or not. Could you elaborate again for the peanut gallery? ;0

[bluethread]

It appears that marrage, as used in this thread, refers to a relationship formally recognized by a governing authority. In order to determine whether such a formal recognition is necessary, one must determine what purpose it serves that is of value to the governing authority. Therefore, what purpose does recognizing marage between persons of the same sex serve for the governing authority?

Could you return to this initial posting? I am curious what you mean by your statement that the governing authority must have a purpose behind setting the limitations on what arrangements should be considered a legal marriage or not. Could you elaborate again for the peanut gallery? ;0

According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, that which is not deliniated in the Constitution to the fedreal governement is left to the people and the states respectively. If I am not mistaken, prior to our Constitution marrage was a religious matter and subject to the dictates of The Church. With The Church and State being united the dictates of the church were recognized as law. The first amendment changed that. Now, to avoid refighting the civil war, let's just acknowledge that this religious limitation has been applied to the states, in spite of the 10th amendment. Therefore, in order to regulate a religious matter, ie. marrage, the state must have a compelling state purpose that overrides the first amendment.

Since, the civil war, federal regulation has expanded and with that expansion have come statutes that include marrage in those regulations. All this has been done while allowing the states to continue to define marrage. However, the privileges of marrage, ie sexual relations, paternal rights and widowhood, have been muddled or expanded to persons not considered as married. This was done through various means, ie. the welfare clause and the "right to privacy".

Now, all of this social engineering has left the definition of marrage in it's wake, changing it from a personal religious matter back into a matter subject to definition by the state. This has left some asking, what happened to what used to be a matter of religious freedom? Therefore, I asked the basic questions that would have meant something and could have been answered rather clearly at the time the constitution was ratified. What is the definition of marrage and what is the compelling state purpose in regulating it? Without clear answers to these questions, one can not rightly decide whether the state should recognize marrage at all, let alone recognize a particular kind of marrage.