[IncPen]

It's hard to argue against such people when the standard objects we put forth against gay marriage are met with "Yeah, that's a church thing and it's no business of mine. I don't do church."

Yes, you've raised the answers that liberals provide when faced with these questions.

The next question after they've provided an answer to the first is, "Why is the state in the business of marriage at all? Since any two adults can enter into a contract, why don't we leave marriage to the churches and contracts to the state?"

The liberals cannot abide this, because they need the lever of bias to crush the churches. That's where this is going: destruction of religion.

[Hildred Castaigne]

"Why is the state in the business of marriage at all? Since any two adults can enter into a contract, why don't we leave marriage to the churches and contracts to the state?"

You see, this is an argument that I don't understand why we try to make, since everyone knows that a regular contract or a civil union contract is legally inferior to a marriage contract with the state. A civil union isn't worth the paper it's printed on, since it can be busted into by any blood relative who cares to try. You have a civil union with someone, you die, and all the stuff you have was left to the other person in the civil union? Here comes Uncle Crabby, busting up the civil union in court with the "Blood relations trump!" argument, bogarting all the possessions. There's no way around that; civil unions are crap shoots.

The liberals cannot abide this, because they need the lever of bias to crush the churches. That's where this is going: destruction of religion.

I hear this a lot, but to be frank, I don't believe it. Every gay I've ever talked to at work just wants those federal bennies they can't have that the married people do and don't give a crap about religion to give in.