When you state that marriage “will always be between a man and a woman because it is religious in nature, and the state does not apply to the same authority the Church does” you are making a claim that is factually untrue. As I explained in my post (http://sunfollower.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/the-marriage-debate/#comment-46) marriage did NOT begin as a religious institution and is not distinctly a religious institution, even today.

Furthermore, even religious definitions of marriage vary; different followings believe different things about marriage (just compare the Catholic teachings on marriage with other sects of Christianity, or Judaism, or Mormonism… you get the picture) If you’re claiming religious authority should be the basis upon which we define marriage how do you decide which religious definition is the “correct one”?

As you say later in the same argument, “Marriage is a cultural, moral institution meant to be a steadying force for societal progress.” Since marriage is a social institution and allowing same-sex marriages can only benefit society, then how can you argue against it? Same-sex marriages can lower the divorce rate, pump money back into a dying economy (through weddings that give patronage to small and large businesses), and most importantly promote tolerance in a world where personal belief causes many to forget the golden rule (and Jesus’ primary teaching).