The argument in this country over same sex marriage is viewed differently by different groups. The right-wing fundamentalists say it is a religious rite, and therefore should not be extended to those who religion considers to be sinners. The problem with that argument is that marriage is also a civil right (as the above graphic shows). Marriage happens outside of the christian religion, and outside of any religion at all -- and the federal and state governments grant the same rights and privileges to marriages that take place outside of the christian religion (or any other religion) as they do to marriages that happen within a religious context.It is those rights given to married couples that is at the crux of this debate. No one is arguing that churches (or other religious entities) should be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. Any preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious figure can continue to practice their own particular brand of religious bigotry far into the future (as can any religious institution), because their right to do that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
But the Constitution also guarantees all citizens equal rights under state and federal law. While religions can continue to discriminate (or not) as they please, the same is not true of government. If the government gives those in opposite-sex marriages certain rights (inheritance, hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc.), then they must grant those same rights to all married couples (including those who have chosen to marry someone of their same sex). It really is that simple. The whole argument is about government-granted rights and privileges -- not religious belief or practice.
Granting the same governmental rights to same-sex couples as are given to opposite-sex couples would not harm any religion at all, since they would be free to continue to believe anything they wish. It would also not harm any so-called "traditional" marriage. This is a claim made by right-wing fundamentalists, but none of them has ever been able to verify that ridiculous claim (by actually explaining how they own marriage would be harmed by someone else's marriage).
In this country, we have prided ourselves on equal treatment under the law (even though we have never really achieved that lofty goal). Legalizing same-sex marriages would get us one step closer to that dream of equal treatment by government.
NOTE -- This argument over same-sex marriage is a perfect example of why government and religion should be kept separate. The government is ruled by the Constitution and religion by a religious book -- and since most religious books can be read and interpreted differently by different people, it would not be unusual for some to think there would be disagreement between religious belief and government practice and law. This should not matter, since government should force no belief on religion and religion should force no law on government.
