>>50030659>I understand that. If the LGBT movement was looking for the gratification of non-hetero partnerships from the government (in the form a contract), civil unions achieve that and have been available for years. The fact is, for many people marriage still has a religious meaning to them--marriage is more than a legal status to them. I understand that, the main problem was that civil unions for gay couples weren't equal to those of heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law. For example gay couples couldn't secure visas for their spouses to come from overseas or get on their partners health plan.
>I personally believe the state has no place in marriage. This really complicates things m8. should nine yrs olds be wed off to achemd? how will assets be split up in the event of a sudden death, if there's no will. obviously a contract could be drawn up for all of this, but how far do you really want to take it.
>Therefore, if a pastor does/does not want to wed a gay couple that is his prerogative.This is discrimination. While i could care less personally(given the vast range of options to get married), if the state allows someone to discriminate against one group, than why not allow everyone to discriminate against someone. Should i be allowed to openly declare that i will not serve gingers or men under 5'2"?
>>50030946>Most are afraid to come out,Wouldnt want to get gassed tbh.
