Questions concerning where to draw the lines on gay marriage issues have become popular topics in America. The issues are extremely meticulous because of individual's personal morals. The issues are based on personal opinion; as a result, there is no right or wrong answer as to whether or not gay marriage should be banned. Religiously speaking, gay marriage is unquestionably going against God's desires. On a legal basis, civil unions between gay people should be an option so the gay people are able to participate in contracts and other benefit programs. Gay relationships cannot be overlooked, but religious marriage for gay people should not be an option. Both Katherine Shaw Spaht and Cass Sunstein provide poor arguments as they fail to differentiate between and civil union and a ceremonial religious marriage.
             In this country there is, by way of the Constitution, a separation of church and state. The separation exists so the government cannot interfere with people's religious beliefs. Most Americans struggle avoiding a mingling between church and state. Many people argue the church and state have already been entangled due to the American government's regulations on marriage. What Americans know as marriage today has practically become authorized by the government. Due to the sanction, there are now certain rights and privileges that accompany marriage. Tax breaks, inheritance issues, medical decisions, property rights, visitation for children in cases of divorce, hospital visitation for those ill, and retirement benefits are only a few of the rights and privileges. The only way to appease advocates of gay marriage is to allow civil marriage.
             The government should only be concerned with civil marriage; the religious aspect should always remain personal for individuals. People who choose to carry on relationships with people of the same sex should not loose their individual rights. A civil union is the most r...