Posted by: Sarah | June 17, 2009 03:55 AM

I had a quasi-religious ceremony w/ a female minister because Melissa and I were "sinners" in the eyes of the Catholic Church and no priest I spoke to would marry us without long periods of "counseling" (re: reforming our sinning lifestlye). So I'm a little skeptical of the idea of marriage being ONLY a "religious" ceremony. Having said that, I do realize many very religious people DO view it as a very religious ceremony (just like a baptism, briss, or confirmation). I don't agree that the right to marry is a Constititional or Civil right. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution at all. And even if it were, it still doesn't mean it's a completely unrestricted right. I have the right to bear arms (even in D.C.!), but I need a license. The same for me to peacefully assemble a protest. Those rights come with certain caveats defined by the government, and I can't decide to eschew them because I don't morally agree with them. The only viable course of action is to return to a system of federalism - let the states figure it out. I don't want any federal law banning or promoting same sex marriage because I know many people in the U.S. would hate it. If Vermont wants to legalize it, that's cool for them. But if Utah wants to ban it, I question why one would want to overturn such legislation via federal mandate. Can't individual states determine their own social policies? Then if you don't like them, you MOVE. But federal mandates mean everyone has to get on board. I don't think I would like that, not only for gay marriage, but also gun control, marijuana legalization, assisted suicide, gambling, etc, etc.
Thoughts?