No. The job of the government in marriage is to regulate finances, privacy laws, inheritance, insurance rules, etc. Religious groups are welcome to bless or not such unions, but, it is the government's job to see to the practical matters and assure fairness. If religious organizations had wanted to keep the word marriage as their own trademark or similar they should have objected to the government involving itself in marriage all along. As it is they have lost all right to the word through common usage.

Hell no. The gov needs to get out of the bedroom. It's not their business.

Why should it matter if you're straight or gay?

I told my son, when I was growing up, we were teetering on accepting African Americans. My mom was prejudice, I'm sure she learned from her mom.

So growing up, I accepted them. They could 'drink out of the same water fountains' and everything. (sarcasm) When she was growing up, it was the plague to interact with these undesirables.

Now it's cool (almost) in almost most places.

I tell him, now you're in the teetering brink. you're kids will find it as acceptable as most people accept African Americans now. You will grow up with all types. Men who love men, and women who love women. I tell him, there's no reason to be afraid of them, like my mom was afraid of black people. I tell him, he doesn't have to agree, but he doesn't have to look away and be afraid. People are people. They can love whoever they like. I also tell him, that I don't care, and make sure he understands that I will love him regardless.

This is an awesome opportunity for parents with kids. Your prejudice can VERY easily become theirs.

Let them be their own people. In 10 years, this will be the norm, and nobody will give a second thought to it. Don't make it a big deal and your offspring wont as well.

It bothers me that people make this an issue.

"Should others, including government, be allowed to dictate the happiness of any two people that decide they would like to spend the rest of their lives together?"

There's always the possibility that people might oppose gay marriage for reasons other than dictating the happiness of others.

Many opponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is an institution of religion that has been given legal recognition for the purpose of protecting the parties involved (and their children). Legally, it gives incentive to men and women to commit to each other in order to form a stable home in which to raise their children. Religiously, it holds special significance to many people of faith. The argument is made that civil unions serve much the same legal purpose without offending the views of those whose faiths define marriage as specifically a man-and-women relationship. Some are also concerned that it could open the door to churches being required to perform same-sex marriages in order to continue to be recognized as churches, in which case the ones having their happiness dictated would be the ones who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.

Should gay marriage be made explicitly illegal? I lean towards no, since I'm not sure this makes any sense. If the law says nothing about gay marriage, then how can gay marriage be recognized by the law? If gay marriage cannot be recognized by the law, then what sense does it make to have a law against it?

Should gay marriage be made explicity legal? Again, my leaning is no, since with civil unions in the picture, I fail to see what is gained for gays other than nomenclature.

It seems that the middle ground is this issue is to keep the traditional marriage / civil union dichotomy in place.