That’s one of the things marriage is for:  the nurturing of children.

If marriage is to be something one does to follow God’s plan, that is something done through one’s church or other religious institution.  As far as state-issued marriage licenses, that should have no religious requirement.

Don’t marry same-sex couples in your church if that’s what you believe, but I see no reason to apply religious restrictions to the broader population.

Some say marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and his Church.  Should that mean we deny marriage to non-Christians, since they can’t fully understand the nature of marriage (as Christians see it)?  When are Christians going to get serious about protecting marriage from divorced people, as Jesus commanded (well, there’s a little ambiguity depending on which Gospel you’re reading)?  You yourself said marriage is an exclusive, live-long covenant, yet we are not enforcing that.

Sorry, Shane, but it don’t think it’s our government’s job to enforce your religious precepts.

Would you say Muslims, Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians are living a lifestyle contrary to God’s design?  If so, should we use the power of the state to set them straight?

“I think it is crucial for us to speak up–again, as an act of love for our neighbors–for the preservation of this institution in our society. The loss of something so fundamental to human flourishing would yield devastating consequences: how we perceive God’s image; how we understand God-like love; how kids understand their own gender identity; the building block of society and statistically-proven healthiest environment for the rearing of children—all this would be affected by the loss of God’s design in marriage.

Now, some of you won’t hear this as love. You might even hear it as bigotry. I hope you’ll understand our heart more than that, and, if you can, give us the benefit of the doubt. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals are lesser people or ought to be ostracized in our society, or that they ought not to enjoy the same freedoms or protections that the rest of us enjoy. The point is simply that you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s designs based on contemporary cultural mores. Again, marriage was not invented by government; it was merely recognized by the government. God is the designer, and God established it as the union of a man and woman in an exclusive, life-long covenant.”

@ Baltimatt: Man, you’re so right – the amendment does hurt! As Evans’ wrote in her post: “…like hell”. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a healthy amendment for society. A really, really hard one, yes, but maybe healthy too. 

Also, wouldn’t it be great if the social support was a separate issue from the marriage one? I wish the tax breaks could be for any deemed competent to raise a kid. Helping parents to raise kids seems to be a legitimate gov’t role; at least more so than defining marriage.