[JuanCarlos]

First off marriaged is not a right to anyone.

How do we know that? Have you read the ninth and tenth amendments? Seems to suggest we have more than just the rights specifically enumerated. Additionally, the second doesn't specifically enumerate the right to own "assault weapons" without any registration or restriction (unless you've got a version with a lot more words than mine). "Arms," "bear," and "infringe" are not defined. So how can you argue for an extremely liberal interpretation of that amendment but a narrow interpretation of others portions of the BoR and Constitution?

Second marriage is about legal contract for property of both. It was started in the south for a white male to marry a non-white female. At the time of the First World War it was expanded to control allotment payments made by the military to dependents. Waiting periods were put into effect to make sure each party was sober enough to enter into a contract.
Matormoniy is the religous bond between husband Husband and Wife. The false idea of seperation between church and state is definately blurred and crossed. They use the same lies to limit the actual Right to bare Arms.

I'm not intimately familiar with the history of marriage in the legal sense...however, I suppose we could go back to some former policy where no marriages were legally recognized. That would be a valid option for equality as well, and one you'll not see me argue against.

Also, matrimony is a religious bond between any two people a church decides to marry. Guess what: there are churches willing to marry gays.

As far as states recognizing gay-marriages, I feel the state should recognize it the same as they do any other marriage if a legally authorized person performs the ceremony. The states should not be able to pick and chose which churches marriages they recognize and which they do not.

Pretty much my stance on the issue. Nobody is saying any churches will be forced to marry anybody, the same way churches can refuse to marry anybody nowadays (off to the judge with ya!).

I also think that civil unions (similar to getting married by the justice of the peace instead of a religious official) should be available to gays and straights. Thse unions should bare all the same legal benefits as traditional marriage without the religious aspects being involved.

No problems there. As long as both options are available to both I see no issue.

EDIT: Also, as a note...my stances regarding the government's interference with the church (and individuals) regarding marriage doesn't extend only to gays. While I can barely handle one wife, I see no fundamental reason that polygamy cannot be allowed. Provided, of course, some of the issues that have plagued it in the past can be solved.