Two Wrongs, both Cook and Lawmakers (Score 1)

Firsta than all, The STATE isn't made to shape the people's mind or believes, the same way that People Believes shouldnt shape the states laws. State purpose is to provide a common place where N different character individuals, etc can LIVE IN PEACE, to everybody, First instace o rule of an state is RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL NATURAL RIGTHS ITS THE BASIS OF THE PEACE. On the other way, communities here pledges for the state to rule on things arent part of an secular state: Religious Matters. Everithing started when Married Catholics (just to name an religion) pledged for an "in men-laws marriage", contaminating the SECULAR STATE creating something that actually doesnt exist ( 'almost every religion states that an marriage in men-laws actually doesnt exist, since the marriage is an religious ceremony and being whife and husband its an faith condition') so those Married Catholics got what they want, a way to "marry" again, on which actually its an civilian contract, since almost no importatn religion consider valid ot true an "in men-laws marriage". So Cook (here representing what its "nick"-named the Gay Lobby), asked for somthing an true and perfect SECULAR STATE souldnt recognize: MARRIAGE, an true SECULAR state doesnt name an private contract with something extracted form an Cult or Religion, so If the Gay Lobby wants really all the advantages (legal, practical and social) the wrongly named "in men-laws marriage", they first must pledge to removal to all these Cohabitation Contract (what actually is) the nick "marriage", while retaining all the rigths and restrictions foreseen on such Cohabitation Contracts. The same way, Religous communities, should be considered an Club, not special groups, and in no way belonging or not to such community should allow any kind of discrimination from pro-gay, atheist, other religious group, and the state it self, and every individual should have warrant that its religuos practice will be respected while its kept inside the areas where such religion community acorded to practice it's belief. So an Gay dont have rigth to irrumpe an Catholic ceremony asking for gay marriage or chalenging the catholics with gay mods, its inaceptable. the same Catholics goups dont have right to irrumpe inside an Gay Pub, and without invite and preach "all the gays are doomed to hell" or things such. It's wrong on public space some law protect discrimination, the same is wrong individuals ask for laws protecting ofense to others. (this its true on both directions). So, no Gay Marriage un less its only an religious marriage and under some religion with this kind of marriage (non christian, jewish, islamist allows gay to marry and its very explicit), so gay are banned to ask for religious marriage on religions that don't allow it, no matter the *equity* question, marriage its an religious institution not an secular one. And so Cohabitation Contracts (incorrectly named Marriage) should be named Marriage (this is an religious ceremony), and also shoulnd be limited by religious belief and be just another contract, among Men an Women, two men, two women, many men and a woman, many woman and a men, whatever not restricted by religious belief but acordingly not named Marriage since an TRUE AND PERFECT SECULAR STATE DONT HAVE MARRIAGE AS NAME FOR WHAT ACTUALLY ITS AN COHABITATION CONTRACT. Everithing its possible, with mutual respect as basis, the problem here is that an cohabitatin contract isnt for some gays what actually interest for they (all the benefits of the in-men law's marriage) but to challenge the hetherosexual community with the "marriage" word; the same way Anti-Gay groups believe that banning certain rigths to Gays will drop the gay population or silence it, TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE AN RIGTH. Its my opinion.