Quote:
And they ought to still be running around stoning people, too, but they're not.


I've always wondered why we never got to have a proper goat sacrifice in the temple, but I suppose you can't have everything.

I just slogged my way through this whole thread, and it's quite impressive to see all the arguments on both sides. I think a big part of the problem is the overloading of the single term "marriage". Marriage has (to some) a spiritual meaning. Marriage is also a legally sanctioned contractual relationship between two parties that effects one's legal rights as well as one's opportunities with third parties (e.g., spousal benefits from work).

My understanding of how Mexico does it is that "marriage" is a purely religious process that has no civil meaning whatsoever. When two Mexicans want to get married, they will typically have a religious ceremony and then head down to the courthouse to have a civil union. (Not that Mexico allows homosexual civil unions, but they do have a very strong idea of the separation of church and state.) In many respects, I think that would be the best outcome here as well. The government can sanction civil unions, and churches (or temples, or mosques, or amusement parks) can sanction marriages. The former imparts certain benefits and obligations before the law. The latter imparts spiritual benefits and obligations before your diety.


Hitting on some other topics that came up when reading through this thread...

Tony asserts that anti-gay-marriage sentiments seem to all be religious in nature, and therefore aren't appropriate for state policy. Part of the good and the bad of our system of government is that state policy is set, indirectly, as a function of the will of the people. And, the will of the people is informed by, among other things, their religious beliefs. To that end, it's entirely within reason for the people to desire not to give state-sanctioned benefits to same-sex couples, to undocumented immigrants, or various other categories of people. Things only get interesting if you try to reach for lower-level principles and apply them to higher-level policies. If your principle is "equal rights for women, minorities, and people with disabilities or different sexual preferences", then that principle leads you to oppose many current forms of state-sanctioned discrimination. If your principles are elsewhere, then you'll feel differently.

Ultimately, what we're seeing in the national debate is a clash of principles, and that's why certain issues never seem to leave anybody satisfied. Issues like gay marriage or abortion just press those hot buttons and people polarize according to their principles.