>He also said that marriage is a
>religious institution, sanctioned by church, and there should be a
>separation between church and state.
>That looks like a very sensible position to me. The state should
>guarantee civil rights, including those to enter various forms
>relationships and partnerships, but that has nothing to do with the
>spiritual or religious dimensions people may add to those relationships.
If he's really for separating church and state, then shouldn't he be campaigning to remove the legal privileges surrounding standard marriages too? That's what seems to be the prime aim of the gay marriage movement, to have the same LEGAL rights as other wedded couples. I've never heard anyone argue that this will require specific churchs to adopt ceremonies they wouldn't otherwise perform. This looks a lot less like "seperation of church than state", and a lot more like a "separate but equal" position, which is completely disgusting.
Arash