[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: You're right... Opposing gay marriage is not homophobic, it's heterosexist. And another "advantage" to marriage is the validation of a relationship by the state, and society. This is not an attack, but merely a curiosity, Cerek... Would you support domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage? If not, how do you feel about the states that have banned all partnership laws for homosexuals?

I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. I agree that they deserve to have the same legal benefits as a married heterosexual couple. I also do not support the Marriage Amendment. I do NOT feel we need to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the sole purpose of defining the term "marriage".

I do believe that the term marriage should be reserved for a heterosexual union, and I freely admit this disagreement is based solely upon my religious beliefs. While critics will say that it is silly to be so "hung up" over a word, I would counter that by asking that - if that be the case - then why do homosexuals insist that their partnerships be called "marriages" if a "civil union" will grant them the same legal benefits?

BOTH sides are equally "hung up" on the term marriage.

As for the individual states, they have a right to define their laws as they see fit. Not all states banned civil unions or domestic partnerships (though some did specifically include those terms in the wording also). Many of these states ONLY banned "gay marriages". And most of those amendments were voted on by the general public, so the law does reflect the desires of the majority of citizens in that particular state.

I believe that each state has the right to endorse or deny gay marriages as they and their citizens see fit. I don't completely agree with those that banned any form of domestic partnership, but I still feel they have the right to create those laws if it reflects the opinion of the majority of their citizens.