Erik Ackerman

I am concerned about all of the furor surround same-sex marriages. My concern stems from what I think is a miscommunication: is marriage a secular or religious institution. I believe that as a religious institution, any given religion absolutely has the right to reject same-sex marriage. However, when it is an institution recognized and sanctioned by the government, I believe that it must apply equally to all. The fact that a particular church rejects same-sex marriage is not a reason for the government to do the same. There is a separation of church and state.

One must ask what the purpose of government recognition of marriage, and what that recognition entails. If the purpose is to promote stability of households and therefore communities, I see no reason for a restriction based on gender. If it is to provide government sanction to a religious institution, I believe it violates the separation of church and state.

What I am trying to say is this: if marriage is religious in nature, it should not be sanctioned or regulated by government and should have no direct effect on government activity such as taxation. If, on the other hand, it is a secular institution maintained and regulated by the government for the good of society, the gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. of the participants should not matter.

Therefore, I think an amendment banning same sex marriage is senseless, since it either does not apply due to separation of church and state, or does not apply because it doesn't matter whether the parties involved are male or female.