It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Then again, neither does the republican party these days.

It's a personal, individual issue.

Therefore, the law of the land should allow for it under the same terms and conditions as it allows for heterosexual marriage, because it's no one's business.

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. In known history, even in societies where homosexual relationships were acceptable, has homosexual marriage ever been considered a right. So the “contract” or legal status of marriage has always been in history something granted to a man and woman. So when almost all laws governing it were written they were written with the intent of it being between a man and a woman.

Additionally the federal constitution leaves marriage to the states; nowhere does it guarentee marriage or say anything about it. Federally the only thing we truly have to go by is DOMA which defines marriage between man and woman. That has yet to be knocked off as unconstitutional. So it would then take a constitutional amendment or future act of Congress to define marriage as anything else to the federal government.

This is why I have said before and maintain that this is a state issue. Each individual state decides how they want to define marriage. Obviously there is an equal protections argument to be made and sought but that goes back to the historic definition and the current federal definition. As long as the federal government maintains man and woman as the definition it is hard to argue that Kentucky must recognize something different simply because Mass does.

I fully understand the desires of homosexuals to be married and I have known and I am sure will continue to know many who say they are because of a ceremony performed. With that said there is no federal guarentee that this “right” of marriage applies to them. The definition of marriage legally has always been between a man and a woman. One can argue it “should” include homosexual marriage but I do not see an overwhelming argument that it “must” based on legal precident or even an overwhelming moral argument.

One can claim the health care coverage or other rights that typically extend to a married partner should go to cover a homosexual partner and by denying them our states and nation are somehow violating a human right. While an interesting argument such benefits are negotiated by employer to employee as compensation. That is largely an employer/employee issue and as for federal we have DOMA.

All roads legally lead back to marriage as being exclusive to man & woman. However if a state choses to change its definition of marriage, that is its right as long as there is no constitutional amendment to say differently.

However, securing equal treatment under the law is not enough for the gay marriage supporters. These folks need to force their desires on everyone, including people who have nothing to do with their plight, so to alter their understanding, personal religious interpretations and teachings to their children. If the element of control was not the primary goal of those in support of homosexual marriage, than they would have chosen a new word to define this new union, minus the ability to procreate. For example, Garriage, Prarriage, Narriage are all available.

Marriage is two things – to the law, it's a contract. To the church/synagogue/mosque/etc, it's a sacred vow and union.

If two consenting homosexual people agree to enter into a marriage contract, the law should be amended to permit them to enjoy the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go along with that secular contractual union, and we shouldn't stand in their way as a society for any reason. That union doesn't cheapen anyone's heterosexual marriage, and doesn't affect in any way the institution of marriage. If anything, it strengthens it.

However, the state should not – and legally cannot – force places of worship to perform or recognize homosexual marriages if it is forbidden to do so in that faith. I think that a lot of the demagoguery over this issue from its opponents assumes that the state will force churches to perform gay marriages, which is simply not possible. The “if they let gays marry, they'll let people marry their sisters/pets/inanimate objects” argument is simply awful, mean-spirited, bigoted, and wrong. I'm sorry to see it used ever, by anyone.

So, while you're right about marriages in general, that doesn't justify prohibiting gay people from entering into that marriage contract if they so desire, any more than we can impose some sort of test on hetero couples marrying to see if their marriages are sincere or will last.