I don't see why it matters whether or not people are married gay. If your religion says its wrong, you believe it is wrong biologically, and you think that to men should not be married for any other reason, why does it matter if someone else does it? On the other hand, if you want love another man/woman and you never want to leave them, does it matter that the country wont confirm it? Now I'm going to get flamed for what I just said and people are going to say why it does matter. The truth is, we have much more important matters at hand such as the war in Iraq and a health care crisis. If we focus politically about less than 1% of the population, then the whole political process will fall out of line. Everyone is going to need health care at some point and everyone is affected by the war in some way, yet people vote based solely on an issue that really doesn't effect the majority of the population. This is a hot button issue. If a candidate focuses on gay marriage and why it is wrong or right, then he/she doesn't need to address more important issues. Sure, you may believe that it is wrong or right, but does it effect everyone or just a small portion of the population?
(Notice I have not said whether I am pro or against so bashing me on that will not effect the merit of my argument.)

I'll just invite you to the "Go Maryland" thread if you'd like to get my take.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

Not being able to be married greatly affects gay couples and their families. It keeps rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities out of their grasp that other couples enjoy.

Is it as important as the war in Iraq. On the surface, no. However, one of the things that the Bush administration pushed was how women in that country were not treated equally. I find it rather arrogant (and quite a few other words), for a country that doesn't treat all of its citizens equally, to pontificate on the glories of democracy and equality to other countries.

And I say we either call the homosexual union "civil union" or something else. Give them the rights that they say they want but leave the word "marriage" for the heterosexual union.

I think that homosexuals saying that they aren't being treated "equally" makes the word "equal" cringe.

Yes, it matters deeply to the members of the homosexual community, but is that a sole reason to base your vote off of, as many people have done? It effects a minority but a large percentage of the population will base who to vote for soley on that. Why does it matter what we call it fxashun? Wouldn't it still be the same thing?

I'm curious.

Would you feel the same way about people who based their vote on a candidate's stand on limiting rights to blacks? or Hispanics? or Asians? or women? or Jews?

Of course, civil unions are the same thing as marriage. That's why anti-gay agendaists are fighting civil unions in states that have DOMA's. They say that civil unions are merely marriage by another name. Now, granted, it's an INFERIOR name - but it's the same thing, nonetheless.

The "anti-gay" agenda fights "civil unioins because the "pro-gay" agenda uses them as a springboard for "marriage". Like they are doing in Vermont.
The County Courier Gay marriage forum held<br>Locals speak out in support of idea

But there are more moderate views as I figured.
Gay.com Community

Considering the number of gay people that actually marry after given the "right", I bet the true feeling among the gay community is much more moderate than the screaming of the few.

I guess it boils down to whether you see marriage as a legal matter, a religious one -- or something that has elements of both.

Well, of course, marriage is both...for some people.

I don't think that the atheists who are married find it much of a religious matter.

So in the collective sense, we really can't give a religious signifigance to marriage, now, can we?