My dad might have thought so, or at least cringed at the thought of the right wing Christians (Christian Coalition Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell Moral Majority) passing a lot of political agenda that could be oppressive to non-Christians.
Dad favored Judaism, especially the simplicity of justice, mercy, walking humbly with God (ATM can help me here....)
Dad did not directly mention homosexuality to me, but he was indirectly very much concerned for their welfare (and for that of others) should Christians gain political power and agendas. He would say that history showed Christians were martyred to lions, and then later Christians martyred others to lions.
He was sad when I converted about my 20th birthday (without really understanding Christianity). He thought it was a demonstration of affiliating with hatred.
In the United States, it would be very reasonable and fair if a homosexual man or woman could simply (logically) substitute a same-sex adult for an opposite-sex adult in marriage. After all, America is supposed to be free from religion, and marriage reduced to a functional and legal secular equivalent. Hold the phone. Religion ain't letting go of politics and the law. I think what killed the Equal Rights Amendment was gay marriage, more than abortion no questions asked or the conscription of women.
If 85% of Americans believe in some sort of God, 15% do not. But their government presumes the existence of God, does it not? Yeah, so do I. But I don't tell 300 million people what to do.
1. What are European countries, Canada, etc. protecting their citizens from with regard to organized religion?
2. How would America be different if it were run by a government run by European guidelines?
Anecdotes---
Red Dwarf-- Religion is an excuse for people to be extremely crappy to one another. Think Northern Ireland (it's a turf war)
Nice move from the other post! 
As far as a simple answer to the heading, I believe that the state and religion should not mix. I do not believe in religion in public schools, nor do I believe we should be required to say the "Under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that marriage should be entered into by two people who love each other and can devote a lifetime to perfecting that love.
I have not spent any time researching religion in other countries or how they handle the religion vs. the state ideas. I have way too much on my hands trying to figure out how to keep George W. Bush out of my business.
It is not an issue. Our governments have passed legislation. The vast majority of Europeans are non-religious. I believe that the constitutional monarchies are the only states that are not officially secular, and even there religion plays an insignificant role in shaping politics. To demonstrate the difference across the Atlantic...:
Tony Blair's approval ratings slumped by roughly 10% following his concession that his faith had influenced his decision to invade Iraq.
Church and State should remain separate. I am sure that we are all agreed.
Religion is private. Again, we are probably all agreed.
That is why, to answer your question, 'Yes'. You need to check religion in the public sphere. Religious groups are often extremely dangerous.
Tony Blair was also advised that he should never, under any circumstance, mention God.
"How would America be different if it were run by a government run by European guidelines?"
Would you like an honest opinion?
Tony Blair was also advised that he should never, under any circumstance, mention God.
I wonder, tongue firmly in cheek, if he received this advice from the Church! The invasion of Iraq was far from Christian!
No. Politicians and his PR gurus. Religion sells about as well as anthrax in the UK.
1. Yes, though it needs to be more effective.
2.Yes. Spend the money on healthcare and education perhaps.
3.Of course. Nothing is 100% certain.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
5.Of course, and that would be far more efficient as well.
6.Yes. Zionism, like all nationalism, is an anathema to harmony. The Israeli State, as it is, is unacceptable. I am not anti-Semitic, simply anti-nationalist.
7.Yep, of course. Basic human right. Along with education.
8.Yep. Bellicosity never did anyone any good.
9.Yep.
10.Yep.
11.Progressive system of taxation, greater redistribution.
12.More democracy, less oligarchy.
13.Politicians paying less lip service to a collection of elites.
14.Less patriotism, less conservatism. That ties into better education.
The list could go on, but I hope that is enough for now.
Tony Blair was also advised that he should never, under any circumstance, mention God.
I wonder, tongue firmly in cheek, if he received this advice from the Church! The invasion of Iraq was far from Christian!
No. Politicians and his PR gurus. Religion sells about as well as anthrax in the UK.
Yes, I know - I was being fascetious! 
I'm Scottish, and I would say that currently religion sales are recovering to anthrax levels or slightly higher, now that our recently departed and unlamented glorious leader's allegiance to Christianity is fading from public consciousness!
Is a civil union simply a functional legal/civil secular equivalent of a marriage, including rights of inheritance, parenthood, and such forth?
Spot on, GuessWho! It's akin to a civil marriage in that it deals with all the legal and financial issues, as you mentioned.
Some ministers within my own church have blessed civil partnerships in church, and will continue to do so despite the more conservative, majority within the national church being opposed to such blessings.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
May I get some clarification here? Are you saying that Gay marriage should not be allowed, but Gay Civil Unions should?
It could be different for you in your country, but marriages here are a civil matter. You can of course choose to be married in a church but the marriage itself is a civil matter.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
May I get some clarification here? Are you saying that Gay marriage should not be allowed, but Gay Civil Unions should?
It could be different for you in your country, but marriages here are a civil matter. You can of course choose to be married in a church but the marriage itself is a civil matter.
Yes. Here we identify marriage as being a theonomical matter. Civil unions are a civil matter. Gay Marriage, unfortunately, falls under the jurisdiction of a Church. I do not like the church. I am not a fan of organised religion. I do believe, however, that separation of church and state works both ways. If a church wishes to realign then it should. If it does not? The state should not impose itself. Of course a marriage is also legally binding!
I am sure there are non-Abrahamic religions that would be absolutely happy to do gay marriages. The Buddhists. Peace and love to you.
If the Jews, Muslims and Christians can agree on anything, it is an insult to God to claim that His religion can make room for gay marriage, so I do agree with Zach on that one.
One Muslim Web site the guy writes, [women should not go around almost naked...... why not respect a woman with her clothes on for her intelligence heart and so on?] and a Christian like me is thinking, dang it, that is what we ought to say.
I am wary of calling Buddhism a religion. I know a number of Buddhists, and they do not believe in God. It's a complex theology. It was, at its origin, atheistic.
You know? I think that my sensibilities (anti-materialist) correspond to that attitude...Why should women be objectified? I do not think, however, that you should oppose their right to dress as they please.
The mere fact that there is a seperation is a problem. Civil partnerships are "second class marriages". Aside from this, there are still cases where a civil partnership may not be enough - such as some hospitals who will only allow a spouse or other next of kin to visit and define this as "someone who is married".
Aye, Gareth. Some of my best friends are a couple who have been together for 20 years (this year) and have adopted a wonderful little girl who had been abandoned by her drug using mother, and would love to be married. Not have a civil union, but be married.
They do not need the church to sanction their marriage. However, it does seem ludicrous that a country (US) that claims to separate church and state will not allow a marriage to occur that is not between a man and a woman. The state should sanction their marriage.
Because they have not been able to be "married" for quite some time, they could not be on each other's insurance plans, they still cannot both be legal "parents" to their daughter, and if it were to occur that one of them were critically ill, the choice of their medical care could be made by family other than their "spouse" of 20 years. Sad state of things. (pun intended)
A law could fix that.
I mean, couldn't they make it so like a civil union is as good as a marriage like a GED is as good as a high school diploma (or does the GED fall short of the high school diploma functionally too)?
Really, "good as a marriage" does not a marriage make. (IMHO)
Does religion threaten heterosexuals too? Atheists? Feminists? Women? I've read Backlash by Susan Faludi for example. The Christian church in general gets some of the blame for perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse in rural areas by being silent, and for the underlying theme of male domination.
You made me giggle. While I do not find it personally threatening, and I am not the scholar on this, my husband is, he would tell me that the Christian Church, not as it is today, but in History, has diminished women.
The Goddess and The God are both very valuable in my religion. I would liken my Goddess to your Mother Mary, I believe. But some Christian religions do not allow a significant worship of Mary.
Question: Is it not true that the Christians (and I know this term encompasses a lot of religions in itself) believe that women are born with sin? That it was the fault of Eve that we are all in this terrible place and not in the Garden of Eden, frolicking around with joy?