Hospitals have a long history of violating the wishes of their patients gay and straight, that's a hospital problem not one relevant to this discussion.
Yes, the state & federal benefits are a bigger one.
So you decided that anyone who opposes gay marriage is just a homo-hating neo-Bull Connor all by yourself? I actually respect that less than if you were just parroting the talking points. I also note who eager you are to central plan the economy, as long as it's being done your way.
Strawman.
There is no difference between people of different colors. There is a difference between men and women. Either you're the racist and think skin color is a valid difference, or you have some weird views on biology
Sure there is. Starting with the genes for skin color and extending to somewhat divergent evolution in the distribution of genes, such as the sickle-cell due to it's resistance to malaria.
Why is that a problem for you? They're consenting adults, who are you to judge who they choose to have sex with? Get out oft heir bedroom! Stop being just like a racist!
Sticky widget - IE due to my social training I find it very, very 'icky', but I can't immediately think of a reason to ban it(between consenting adults) outside of procreation due to the increased risk of bad recessive genes.
You don't like religion, check. I suppose that's an insight into why you view "slightly different paperwork" as a horrific affront to basic human rights, but "squashes religious liberty" as not worth considering.
I think that 'slightly different paperwork' is your own invention, not mine, and I don't support squashing religious liberty so this amounts to a couple strawmen.
That's why they call them "unintended" consequences.
It's simple enough - I'm something of a fence sitter. I support gay marriage, but I also support the 'right' for religious organizations
BTW, if your religion opposes gay marriage, then don't get gay married. Don't go to gay weddings. But there are plenty of religious institutions that are willing to perform the ceremonies.
As such, I look at it like this: Nobody here has pointed out how gay marriages harm
them. Closest I see are slippery slope arguments. Thus it becomes a question of religious freedom - on the one hand a group wants the ability to get married. On the other side a group wants to prevent that. An imposition on THEIR religion. It reminds me of how Muslim countries would impose a special tax on non-Muslims. We don't allow that sort of stuff.
Ergo, in the best interests of freedom my position is that the government allow gay marriages but have strong protections in place that allow religious organizations to not conduct/support weddings that they do not support.
Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.
Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing
Word. Oh, and I agree with all the other posts of yours I see. Generally more eloquent as well. Take the state's money, follow the state's rules. Don't take the state's money and you should be much more free to operate, though there are limits.