Gays should be allowed to marry.

. http://eqfed.org... . http://www.alternet.org... Regarding your statements issued condemning civil unions: If ordinary citizens were to not recognize civil unions for gays, who says they would recognize gay marriage? ? - People generally respect marriage more than any other union. As well, if I may inquire, how does civilian recognition affect anything? ? - The employer is the main person that matters in a marriage or civil union. Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance. - Duh! But we will not get that! I do agree with you in regards that most people may respect the institution of marriage more, and it may inherently seem more impressive. However, that does not change its status as a religious term; just because it may be respected and admired more, it still has religious origins. - You have not explained why religious origins are bad. Many churches and all courtrooms will honor gay marriage. Why should we all have to settle? I'll get to this in further depth in my last speech. As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status. - The New Hampshire government requires this however this is not accomplished. And will not be accomplished through anything but marriage. Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection. - Then you agree with same sex marriage. All we wantis for marriage to be recognized by everybody and for everybody. I dont see why gays are excluded from society like some modern caste system or jim crow. Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits. - Most marriages are performed by the church and should be if wanted. That marriage should be marriage instead of civil unions. P. S. TO VOTERS Remember that for voting con does mean you are against gay rights! The separation of church and state (Here meaning altering the term "marriage" to fit a better non-religious term when used for governmental purposes) is unrealistic. Gays and lesbians will not still receive the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples! And here is why: Today, marriage is one of the oldest institutions and most respected. The term itself means something powerful. My opponent is not only suggesting that we exclude homosexuals from this institution but all of America. He admits that he is an advocate for church and state in marriage. This means that every marriage will be called civil unions. This means that Americans' marriages will no longer be recognized internationally. He is banning Americans from getting married. This person is outlawing marriage. AND If he says that you will have the choice to have a civil union or marriage then he is once again banning gays from marriage. This is ridiculous because legal marriage is not a religious institution. If legal marriage is a religious institution then Atheists and Satanists would be deemed religious. This is NOT a compromise. This IS exclusionism! My opponent is banning gays from the institution of marriage while allowing Atheists and Satanists to join. OR he is banning all Americans from marriage.