Gay Marriage Amendment
I see from today's WaPo and RTD that the Virginia Senate has passed a gay marriage ban with identical language to the House version, essentially assuring that the measure will be the subject of a referendum.
Now that the ban seems all but a certainty, I'd like to raise a few questions that I think don't get enough time in the debate. However, let me preface these questions by saying that I'm glad to see states pursuing these avenues in the democratic process, rather than relying on litigation to try and resolve what is clearly a political question.
Now, the questions:
1) Why do we refer to a religious ceremony and the civil ceremony by the same name? That is, our belief that "marriage" is between a man and a woman comes from the Bible. Why don't religious conservatives object to the fact that two raving atheists can be married just like the same as those married before God?
2) Given that we allow two atheists to have their civil commitment called "marriage", how is letting two God-fearing women get "married" any different?
3) Assume, arguendo, that a bill was proposed to call only religiously recognized unions marriage, and all other unions "civil unions" -- do you think opposition to gay "civil unions" would be as strong?
4) Why do we care if two people of the same sex make contracts with each other? If "Adam and Steve" want to exercise power of attorney for each other, why do we care?
I'm actually genuinely interested in responses, since I've always sensed there was something about this debate I was missing. I mean, we've let Brittany Spears get married twice -- clearly the institution of marriage could use some work. How about we attach a marriage education plan to the gay marriage ban?