I think the question is based on a faulty premis...<BR><BR>Before we can ask the question of "is there a non-religious reson for banning gay marriages" we must first ask ourselves "is there a non-religous reason <i>for</i> marriage?"<BR><BR>Is there a reason, outside of religion, to have a wedding and a marriage as opposed to a contract of a civil union?<BR><BR>If it is a civil union, then there is no reason to restrict it to anyone. If it is a marraige, then it is, by definition, a religious institution, and therefore is it any wonder that religious values and ideals prevail?<BR><BR>Being religious, I find it hard to resolve within me the view that civil "marriage" has nothing to do with religious marriage and should therefore be open to whomever, and the view that I hold that says marriage of same sex couples which implies a sexual union as well as a union in all other aspects, is abhorrent and should not be allowed. <BR><BR>For myself, if gay civil unions are allowed, I will not fight it, but I will not actively support bringing them about.<BR><BR>I would say let the government enact a civil contractural union between whichever two poeple wish it, and save "marriage" as a religious institution and a separate thing entirely. Religious people can then obtain a civil union by the government, as well as a religious marriage if they choose.