CNN

1) You must be a natural born citizen to become President (sounds a bit discriminatory against all other US citizens that immigrated here)

2) You must be 35 years of age or older to be eligible for the office of the Presidency (sounds discriminatory)

And I've never said I agree with these policies. I don't.

3) Only registered democrats or independents are permitted to vote in the democratic primary (isn’t disallowing other political views the right to vote in the democratic primary wrong?)

Once again, a private organization.

4) Laws prohibit polygamy. Will you both be howling in support of multiple unions?

I'm not sure how I feel about polygamy, but I don't understand how multiple people could be engaged in a single marriage contract. How are the rights and benefits distributed? How do you determine who gets what, should one partner wish to dissolve the marriage? Until I find a reasonable solution to this, I wouldn't support the same legal protection for polygamous marriages. However, I think that if they want to be married through their church, that's fine by me.

Kevin: I'm not saying that (federal) law should be changed, because under the constitution, there's nothing prohibiting gay marriage. I think that gay marriage is synonymous with our American ideals of freedom and liberty, and therefore you need to provide a reason why that liberty should be denied. Again, though, I think the issue should be left up to the local governments. I guess the big question, then, is if local governments should recognize marriage licenses from out-of-state, which I obviously think they should.

Red and Mike in HI,

Our laws at times prohibit the preceived rights of others.

1) You must be a natural born citizen to become President (sounds a bit discriminatory against all other US citizens that immigrated here)

2) You must be 35 years of age or older to be eligible for the office of the Presidency (sounds discriminatory)

3) Only registered democrats or independents are permitted to vote in the democratic primary (isn't disallowing other political views the right to vote in the democratic primary wrong?)

4) Laws prohibit polygamy. Will you both be howling in support of multiple unions?

How about a 50 year old man and a 15 year old if the parents of the minor (and the minor) consent?

The line must be drawn somewhere. The American People, it's government, Churches, State Governments – all (by majority) support marriage as it has stood for the past 3000 years.

Last I heard ...God allows free will to be excercised. In that case...if gays and lesbians want to marry...under the law of the land...so be it. Than again no religious inst. should be forced to marry ANYONE! 1st Cor. 10:23 says ""Everything is permissible"— but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"— but not everything is constructive."
I draw the line when gay or lesbian couples wish to adopt a child ....but that is a debate for another time. The one thing I don't want is the Gay/Lesbian/Trangender..etc...etc..agenda being shoved in may face...ie...when half of SF shuts down for the "Gay Pride Parade"

Marriage is NOT a “religious” institution. If it were merely that, I would not have had to get a marriage “license” from City Hall prior to my church wedding. There are millions of people in this country who do not get married in a church nor by religious clergy, who are still considered “legally” married in this country.

You could argue that marriage is BOTH a religious institution and legal system. Of course you had to get a license and fill out documents. That is done to satisfy the "paperwork" involved on the legal side. But don't you suppose the majority of couples in this country who chose get married by a priest, or other person of faith, did so because of their religious beliefs? Don't overlook that most people in this country follow some type of Christian faith.

I’m sorry, but when you’re attempting to stifle someone’s liberty, the burden of proof is on you.

It's my understanding that when a special interest group wants to change the law, they hire a Lobbyist. Therefore, the "burden of proof" is in the hands of the same-sex crowd, if you can consider it a special interest group. I have to suppose that both sides have Lobbyists, and the issue goes nowhere.

Marriage is NOT a "religious" institution. If it were merely that, I would not have had to get a marriage "license" from City Hall prior to my church wedding. There are millions of people in this country who do not get married in a church nor by religious clergy, who are still considered "legally" married in this country.

As for the adoption thing....I have unfortunately known far too many children of divorced heterosexual parents who have been damaged beyond repair by the actions of their selfish straight parents who have gone on to have innumerable boyfriends and girlfirends and who shoved their kids aside to resume dating and live the single life again, until getting married, and often divorced, a second time.

I have also know homosexual parents who have adopted and provided extremely stable, loving, caring homes to children who were living in orphanages and foster homes. They get up and make pancakes for their kids, make a healthy lunch, participate in school activities, read to them and tuck them in at night. None of them ever tried in any way to influence their childrens sexual preference and as far as I witnessed, the children I know in these circumstances are happy, healthy, VERY well cared for, and loved very much. If I were a kid and it were my choice, I'd take the stable, loving homosexual couple over the divorced heterosexuals who are dragging me through court, casting me aside for their new love interest, and putting me through a few more marriages.

Stable, happy, caring, loving people come in every shape, color, size and sexual preference.

“Marriage” is a religious institution.

Marriage was not created by religion; religions adopted marriage from their surrounding cultures. At least, that's my opinion, as no one knows how the basic idea of marriage came to be. They existed long before Judaism or Christianity, and marriages can be performed in a completely secular fashion.

We have no proof either way. But I am all for playing-it-safe and keeping things the way they’ve been for the past couple hundred years.

I'm sorry, but when you're attempting to stifle someone's liberty, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove some kind of compelling interest for the state to stop gay couples from adopting, they should be free to do it without government interference.

Who made it a rule that marriage can only be between a man and a woman? I think many homosexual couples want the title of ‘married’ just as much as they want the legal benefits. And I see absolutely no reason why they should be denied that, or why you care at all.

"Marriage" is a religious institution. Being that I am Catholic, I choose to be against it for same-sex couples. However, I do agree that same-sex couples should have legal rights (financial, property, etc) as I stated previously.

When you open an adoption center, that can be your policy. Doesn’t mean it should be the policy for everyone, at least not until you have proof that a child is damaged when raised by a homosexual couple.

We have no proof either way. But I am all for playing-it-safe and keeping things the way they've been for the past couple hundred years.

Unfortunately, Jon, "marriage" is a little more "universal" than being able to play in the WNBA or belonging to a particular church. There is the NBA for your son, there are other churches you can join, and your white child has plenty of other scholarships he can apply for! What if I said to you that as a Mormon, you were not able to vote? Or, as a white male, your son was not eligible for an education at all?

I agree with a previous post that stated the ONLY argument EVER heard against gay marriage is RELIGION or DISGUST. The Mormons who knocked on my door ever single week for 7 years were against my religion and their beliefs may have disgusted me, but I have no right to stop them from practicing what they believe. We live in a free country that protects their beliefs, even if I disagree with them. What a BEAUTIFUL thing!

I may hate what you believe in, but I will still fight to the end to protect your right to believe it. THAT is the true definition of an AMERICAN.

People had the same exact arguments over allowing black people to vote. Religion and disgust. Neither of those are good enough reasons to keep two people who love each other and are in a monogomous relationship from having the same legal rights as everyone else, no matter how uch it personally offends you. They are not forcing YOU to be in a same sex marriage.

When God himself holds a press conference and publically announces that gay people – though He made them himself – and last I was informed – God doesn't make junk or mistakes – do not fall under HIS legal definition of marriage, maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. And, George W. hearing voices from above doesn't count for me.

And, EVEN THEN, I'm sorry to have to break this to you God, but our country has a strict "separation of church and state" law! Sorry, Jon, but I think you might be more comfortable in Afganistan under the Taliban. I've heard they are BIG on including religion in their politics.

Who are you people to judge whether two consenting adults should marry or not? Why do you want to impose your narrow moral framework (many mainstream Christians support gay marriage) on them?

Are you so insecure about your own identity, your own marriage relationship, that an expression of commitment by two individuals somehow threatens you? That's simply ludicrous.

Marriage strengthens the social order through laws governing estates, child care, health care, and others. Our society will be stronger by extending the ability to enter into a marriage commitment to more couples.

Please, please...there are children dying right now, in Iraq, and here, our children and theirs, due to greed and lies that were perpetrated by our government. There are families being devastated by illnesses and a medical system that would see them dead rather than pay a claim. There are millions living in dire poverty and with no hope for an education. Please...I know how important this issue is to you personally, and I agree with your stance on it, but for the good of the entire nation, PLEASE stop giving the republicans another opportunity to inflame their "base" with these personal moral, "wedge" issues! THEY ARE USING YOU and your issue to "get out the vote" among their religious zealots, guaranteeing another term of their intolerance and greed. When you bring this up, you do nothing but give them fodder for their fire. They LOVE it! It GALVANIZES their base to get out and make sure they vote against you. In doing so, you are helping to ensure thousands more dead in this horrific war, a spiraling deficit and medical insurance that is crushing everyone in this country. STOP. You are helping to keep them in power!

And Jon, discrimination by private organizations and discrimination by the government are pretty different things. It's a tricky debate, especially since it depends on whether you think Constitutional rights should be incorporated into the states, but so long as governments are handing out marriage licenses, we should not tolerate discrimination.

In my opinion, gays should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses and receive the same benefits and titles as heterosexual couples. Practically, I think it should be settled at the smallest level of government possible, if the government has to be involved at all.

It should be considered as a “civil union” and NOT marriage, which is between a man and woman.

Who made it a rule that marriage can only be between a man and a woman? I think many homosexual couples want the title of 'married' just as much as they want the legal benefits. And I see absolutely no reason why they should be denied that, or why you care at all.

They should not be allowed to adopt or bear children. I am a firm believer that children need both a MOTHER and FATHER in their lives while growing up in order to be enriched with the unique differences that only each can provide.

When you open an adoption center, that can be your policy. Doesn't mean it should be the policy for everyone, at least not until you have proof that a child is damaged when raised by a homosexual couple.

I believe that if a same-sex couple wants to be legally bonded and receive right similar to those of a married couple, that it is fine under a couple of circumstances. (1) It should be considered as a "civil union" and NOT marriage, which is between a man and woman. (2) They should not be allowed to adopt or bear children. I am a firm believer that children need both a MOTHER and FATHER in their lives while growing up in order to be enriched with the unique differences that only each can provide.

This country was founded on the principle that religion and the government are SEPARATE.

For example, an arranged or forced marriage is a cultural decision and those marriages are no more legitimate than a gay marriage. Culture is not to be legislated. I am sorely disappointed in our government. The only argument I ever hear against gay marriage cites religion or disgust.

That disgusts me. Give them the same rights that I, as a straight woman have.

Red from NC writes, "How sad that there are still people in this country that think like this"

Red, my caucasian son will NEVER qualify for a scholarship from the NAACP. Is it fair just because he isn't african american that he is descriminated against?

My son will never be afforded a chance to play in the WNBA. Is it fair he is discriminated against because he is a male?

My son will not be 'called' to become the head of the LDS church because he is not Mormon. Is if fair to discriminate against him because of his faith?

The list is endless of how EVERYONE in the country faces some sort of "I can't do that". Welcome to real life!

Gay's can marry, but it doesn't make it right. It's not what marriage was created for.

How sad that there are still people in this country that think like this. I am straight and have been happily married to aman for nearly 20 years. I am a designer and have MANY, MANY close friends who are gay couples that have been together, for all intents and purposes, "married", loyal and committed to each other for 20, 25, even 40 years! This beats the heck out of the INNUMERABLE straight, and hypocritically "religious" couples I have known who have been through 1, 2 or even 3 "heterosexual" marriages! In my opinion, it is these "straight" couples who marry and divorce over and over again that are an "offense" to the intitution of marriage! Not the gay couples who have been in loving, very long term relationships. Why don't they deserve to be "married'? As far as I'm concerned, if I were a gay couple, with straight couples as the example, I wouldn't want to call my relationship a "marriage"! Oh, and btw, the born again Republican Christian contingency has a MUCH higer divorce rate than the so called "liberal Democrats".

YES – two women CAN marry... two men.

Two women, or two men, for that matter, cannot be "married". Marriage is defined as a "union between a man and a woman". Homosexuality is practiced by deviants of society and in NO WAY should be recognized as a "married couple". What is this world coming to?