I've heard the argument that if gay marriage were to be allowed, it would lessen the validity of the traditional marriage vow. I just don't see the logic in this argument. A marriage vow is simply stating you are making a commitment to your partner for life. It doesn't say anything about your partner's gender. I also don't understand how couple "A's" vows have any baring on couple "B's".
I also don't get the rebuttal that this has absolutely no similarity to interracial marriages. I know enough about history, that is wasn't too many years ago, that inter-denominational marriages were banned. And even in the less distant past, interracial marriages were forbidden. Both are now common occurrences and the fabric of society hasn't completely disintegrated because of it.
This country had two principles included in the ideological foundation. One was the separation of church and state. The other was religious freedom. Both were valid and had legitimate reasons for being included. The majority of the people who originally came to this country were fleeing from religious oppression. They were coming from countries were there was a state religion, and if you didn't belong to that religion, you were either banished or worse, imprisoned or killed. The church was part of the government and the laws of the land were based on religious doctrine.
Our forefathers decided that people should have the freedom to practice whatever religious beliefs they chose to follow.
Apparently, this is now being interpreted as freedom to practice and of the dozen or so approved Christian religions. I wonder how many of these people would be happy if the state religion were to suddenly be changed to, oh say Hinduism, Buddhism or even Muslim. I'm sure there would be a quick uprising of rebellion.
This is just a ploy by those in the "majority" to oppress those who do not bow down to their ways.
Ok, I'm done ranting.