Bryant

I wrote this for a scholarship, and I've got nothing better to post (although I think this is rock solid):

An issue that has taken the nation by storm in the past few months is that of homosexual unions sponsored by state governments. Many states have various proposals in their legislatures either banning or allowing such unions. Vermont’s legislature, in a move more liberal than most, has even gone as far as to allow homosexual marriage.
The problem is rooted in different religious and constitutional views of the issue; allowing the unions violates the religious beliefs of many Americans. However, the fact remains that church and state are separated in the United States. The beliefs of any number of churches should not dictate government policy.
Marriage is comprised of two elements. The first is registration with the government via a marriage license. The license is essentially a piece of paper that signifies a legal union between two individuals. With this, a married couple qualifies for numerous benefits: tax breaks, health insurance, etc. The second component of marriage (one not required for the aforementioned benefits) is the religious blessing. Currently, some religious groups sanction same-sex marriages; others refuse to recognize them, many condemning them as violating religious law.
Same-sex unions should be allowed. From a constitutional standpoint, such a practice would be non-discriminatory and inclusive, two characteristics inherent in the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. Religious institutions would retain the right to recognize or reject the marriages, and the separation of church and state would be preserved.
Not only does this solution make sense religiously, economically and constitutionally, it extends basic rights to gay and lesbian couples while protecting the religious freedom every American holds dear.