>>>>>It is a choice for everyone. Nobody forbids a person to enter a marriage contract, and government does not care what he/she will do next (i.e. in sexual terms). In regard to responsibilities, you got badly mistaken. I meant spousal responsibility, i.e. one should care for his/her spouse/kids whole life, etc; i.e. it is ethical things. I meant that marriage is primarily great responsibility, not a great privilege as some may argue, and, accordingly, if someone chose to not have the marriage then it is not a punishment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've very confused. My impression is that you do not believe the state should recognize gay marriages. Am I wrong in that?
>>>>
>>>>If not......
>>>>
>>>>In what way don't gays qualify for marriage under the paragraph I've quoted?
>>>>Why should the state fail to grant gays who enter this marriage contract the same rights and privileges as other married couples?
>>>
>>>You got really confused. Any person can enter into marriage contract with another qualified person, i.e. of the opposite gender. If this person does not want it then he/she does not enter into the contract; though he/she can go and enter into different kind of contractual relationship with any other person of his/her choice.
>>
>>And the requirement of "opposite gender" is there to support by religious taboo and not the interest of society as a whole. The state has no compelling interest in making this provision - which limits individual rights - except to satisfy the desire of one group to impose its religious values on another group.
>
>Not every move should be afforded by government compelling interest. By the way, restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is not harsher than restricting the same marriage or let say driver licensing by age criteria. What do you think, for example, about restricting someone's rights to go outdoors without pants? I already told you, but you regretfully ignore, that marriage is more about responsibilities, voluntarily taken, than about rights.
>Also, why are you so unilateral about religious values? After all, they are the same group values as anything else, i.e. anti-religious argument is no more valid than religious one.

I support religious values. I would never tell any religion they had to condone or recognize same-sex marriages, divorce, abortion or eating pork as moral. That is the nature of belief and I respect anyone who live *their own* life by values they believe in.

But government in a secular society plays a different role and as a liberatarian I believe that any restriction a government places on its citizens must have justification. People driving or drinking too young endangers those who are not otherwise involved. Gay marriage does not. In the first case the state has a right to place limits that protect the group. Allowing same-sex marriage affects no one but the parties involved.