Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution at all and therefore should be left to the states to develop their own laws regarding it.

I agree with Kieronell. I also believe that gays and lesbians should have marriage rights equivalent to those enjoyed by heterosexuals. It was not so long ago that interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Gay marriage is something whose time has come and in no way affects or diminishes heterosexual marriages (and no I am not gay myself)

As a completely apathetic party I have one thing to say about this: If you would like marriages to be recognized as a religious institution then that is fine, but in such a case no marriage should come under consideration of the government. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then what matters to the government is the civil bond between two individuals of consenting age regardless of gender. Heterosexual couples in this case would be bound legally under the civil bond and the status of “married” as far as the government is concerned should convey absolutely no distinction (tax, privilege or otherwise). I understand the distinctions provided under current segregationalist policies which seek to recognize marriages and civil unions but reject these as failures in the application of logical methodology. That being said the government should not be capable of stopping any member of any gender (no matter how they define themselves) from forming a civil bond provided of course that both parties are of legal, consenting age.

I completely concur. Any action which would hinder a person from marrying (in the eyes of the government) anybody or anything they wish would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

Marriage. One man. One woman. Any other questions?

I concur with ejohnson777
marriage=1M+1W

One man & One woman A Unity, that is a Marriage In the House of LORD!

Again, my question is more to the justification of the governmental aspect of marriage. Gov. recognizes civil bond, that is all that should matter to the government. If marriage is One Man and One Woman and is a religious distinction that is fine. If that is the case, what reason can be provided to stop civil unions between two persons of legal age regardless of gender?

No offense meant, but I will not consider Leviticus or any arguments from religious institutions as legitimate responses.

Sorry, I also wanted to add a quick quip about divorce.

Divorces in which abuse is not the reason for divorce should require parties involved to pay the government to recoup tax losses. This would remove the incentive for parties not committed to civil unions (no matter their composition) from taking advantage of the tax code. (Please note that I would apply this to the current system as well)
Committed pairings bound by law should be granted all the benefits currently permitted to married couples, and married couples henceforth recognized by the government as committed pairings bound by law without independent status or unique treatment.

This is wrong on so man levels. Love knows no boundaries.

This is wrong on so many levels. Love knows no boundaries.

The Constitution is there to protect citizens’ rights, not deny them. This Amendment has no place there.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These hypocritics needs to understand that most people who are GLBT are adults and they have the same rights as other americans. Going against our consititution is Anti American.

And as Thomas Jefferson once said in the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Agreed!