Gay marriage, a civil right beneficial to all.

Proposition 8 in California has brought back discussion of gays and their access to civil institutions, civil rights, and civil benefits.  The subject at hand is that of civil marriage.

Please note that I just repeated the word 'civil' four times.  I must underscore that  gays are not

petitioning our government to enact or enforce any laws that would infringe upon religion.   We respect the right of religions to function as they see fit.   Because we sometimes forget that American governmental agencies accept religious marriage as official for government purposes, we often confuse civil and religious marriage.  In many countries, the state does not recognize religious marriages for its purposes, rather any marriage to be recognized by the state must be performed by a state official in a non-religious setting.  Hence, marriages are often celebrated twice:  once and first civilly and then again religiously in the religious locality of choice.   

With his in mind, I would like to begin the discussion of how marriage for gays would be productive for society as a whole and harmless to religion as a whole.  I also recognize that one may be against allowing gays to marry for religious reasons.  

Given that gays and lesbians are now open or at least can be open about their lives in more and more settings, and given that all the while they continue to be productive members of society, it is appropriate that they petition their government(s) for recognition  and equal access to rights that have been hitherto denied them.   The right to marry and to have access to the governmental benefits of marriage is a great facilitator of the American dream.  To marry and spend one's life with one's chosen one is a key component of happiness.  Our Declaration of Independence says that all men are entitled to pursue happiness according to the dictates of their conscience.   Our efforts to have access to marriage is nothing more than our pursuit of happiness.  I cannot see why that should be resisted.  

Religious convictions may hold firmly that marriages among gays must not be sanctioned. 

However, I can think of no non-religious reasons that can withstand simple reasoning.  

Society is only as strong as the strength of its individual components.  If poverty ravages any community within our midst, we all suffer the results somehow.  If a subset of society suffers a disease, we all pay the price in some way.  If any group faces hardships , we all feel the repercussions in some way.  Gays have been criticized for being immoral, promiscuous, unbridled and irresponsible.  Societies since the evolution of modern man have realized the value of creating institutions, structure and order so that stability of the group can be achieved.

It is not fair to gays to criticize them for being irresponsible while simultaneously denying them the very institutions and structure in life that are designed to avoid the irresponsibility they are so reproached for!   Marriage in our gay community would help bring stability to our lives just as it does for our straight brothers and sisters.  If the gay community is more stable, so will be the greater society of which we are all a part.  Marriage creates boundaries, trust, structure, and interweaves the couple with the rest of the two families involved.  It would undeniably be good for gays themselves to be able to marry, it would therefore make for a more homogeneous stable society and stronger families.  

Religions would not be required to marry anyone that they would not like to marry.  A more stable, coherent society is better for the propagation and maintenance of religion than a chaotic divided one.  The integration of gays would be beneficial to the solidity of religion.  Many churches and religions have begun to realize this and accept gays with open arms allowing them the same participation and growth.  Many of these churches are growing.  

In essence, it is a matter of fairness.  If there be no harm done to others (excluding religious beliefs that it is sinful and therefore harmful to one's soul) and if it fulfills a couple's mutual pursuit of happiness, I can see no reason to withhold it.   If on the contrary it is withheld because of religious strictures, it can certainly be argued that religion is imposing its influence on others who do not share the religion and pushing their beliefs on others.  At that point religion is no longer just fundamental within its own domain, it becomes integrationist seeking to integrate its fundamental beliefs and dogma into government.  This is precisely what our founding fathers warned against.