PeterDavid.net

The Daily Show (god I love them) did a good little bit on the issue last night (I caught it at ten this morning, though).

Monkeys

My husband was in the military and, like a lot of other military members, was more than a little homophobic. I told him that there is not enough love in the world, so why would you be against 2 people loving each other? That comment stayed with him and several months later he told me that it made a lot of sense. (I had forgotten I'd said it and he had to refresh my memory.) He has since been supportive of gay and lesbian relationships. Many people have many high sounding reasons to discriminate against them, but it all comes down to fear and hatred. We don't need any more of that in this country. Our government stirs up enough every day.

Welcome to the new civil rights movement. Whatever happened to "all men are born equal" and "the pursuit of happiness" in this culture? This is one reason why a lot of people don't vote; the candidates don't have their head out of their @$$.

Matt

Well, the government has always told religious institutions what to do concerning marriage, inasmuch as churches can't marry brother and sister or threesomes or a man and his dog (which has really strained my relationship with Fido.) And marriage is a state matter as well as a religious matter (one need not enlist the services of a clergyman to get married; a judge will do just fine). So in that respect, I don't know what you're going on about.

But I do agree that this is a "war on love" and your broader point about government interference in the private lives of people is well taken. Say, why don't you vote for the one candidate who has come out in favor of gay marriage: Ralph Nader. I know he's "unelectable", but really, isn't that just a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of liberals who don't have the guts to step outside the Democratic circle? Well, it's not *my* dilemma since I have no plans to vote Democrat anyway, but still...

-Dave O'Connell

How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.

If you want to be married in the eyes of God get married by a member of the clergy.

Civil Unions: Two steps. State issues a license then, Ceremony preformed by a member of the state (judge, mayor, clerk)

Married: Two steps Get a license from the state then get 'married' by a clergy person.

And for me, most damning of all...how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do?

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

That's just it. Bush doesn't believe in a separation of church and state. Neither do many members of his inner circle. Remember when Bush the elder said that atheists weren't real citizens?

I support gay marriage, but I understand a lot of the ambivalence on the part of many, people who really are not bigots but who are not open-minded either.

Traditional religion - just about every stream of ever major faith - has long stated that homosexuality is a sin. That's something that is deeply ingrained in a lot of people. That's something that is also not likely to change in a lot of mainstream religions, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that homosexuality is totally inborn, which is to say placed there by the same God who is seen as having banned such behavior in the first place.

To say that we should just simply ignore such deeply ingrained beliefs is not realistic. It doesn't mean that over time, people will not change how they regard gays. After all, thirty years ago, the idea of giving gays any rights at all was revolutionary. But saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, or a religious fanatic, or is violating the idea of separation of church and state is oversimplifying the case.

Beyond which, I think that a lot of people's religious beliefs have never really made room for a church/state separation in the first place. If you truly believe that the devout are obligated by their faith in fighting what they percieve as immoral on all fronts, then you also believe that government must be forced to legislate morality. I don't like such attitudes, but a lot of people in this nation think that way, and they have to be reckoned with.

I speak from my own experience. I am a religious Jew, and my faith does consider male homosexuality - not the feelings but the sex act - a mortal sin. (It also considers lighting a fire on a Saturday a mortal sin, just for perspective.) For a long time, I was a homophobe. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with gay men. I needed to stop thinking of people who happen to be gay/lesbian as "Sinners" or "Deviants," and to start thinking of them as People. It took a long time, and it took meeting and becoming friends with people who happen to be gay/lesbian. And it took seeing close friends (who my wife and I introduced) falling in love. (It also took Joss Whedon's perfect portrayal of Willow and Tara as people and not as political statements.)

So I can understand why so many are not happy about this monumental change, why Kerry cannot come out in support of actual marriage at this point. I would give this nation time. Things will change. But it's not easy. And I think some allowance has to be made for the difficulty the truly devout have in learning

The only thing I cannnot understand is the out and out contempt that Dubya shows for not only gays but for the Constitution. But he has shown time and again that he is a divider, not an uniter, and will work very hard to divide this nation over something that - when compared with the threat of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, the messed-up economy - is not a grand issue or something to keep us up at night.

And I thnk all who read my "rant" through from start to finish for not fleeing.

I agree with you about gay marriage.

BTW, your RSS feed doesn't seem to be working, i haven't seen any new messages for several days. Just thought you'd like to know.

This is a clear matter of equality: homosexuals having the same rights as every other American. Bush and the other opponents can stand behind whatever shield (church, morals, wording of the law) they want to, it's still just bullying others because of something they don't approve of. Equal rights are being violated and there is already an Amendment prohibiting that. It is disgusting how this country tramples on the very principles it was founded on.

PAD,

You left out a question. Given that gays weren't going to go into male-female marriages anyway, unless as a 'beard', what harm does gay marriages actually _do_ to heterosexual marriage?

Another point to ponder. If people can make marriage work despite physical limitations of one or the other -- handicap, disfigurement, etc. -- we almost universially wax sentimental and applaud it. If the physical condition is that both members of the couple have the same set of genitalia, schisms erupt.

But since I try not to criticize without making useful suggestions, here's a couple for the Family Values Faction:

1) Make Valentine's Day a national holiday. You want to promote and sustain marriages? Let people have the day dedicated to romance _off_.

2) Add computer dating options to the IRS forms. Hey, these services match on age and income anyway...

I'm all for gay America creating their own life-long union between two people. Their own version of marrigage. I would back it and respect it entirely. I do however disagree with gay America deciding that the clasical idea of marriage should change for them.

I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don't like it, don't use it, but don't expect everything to change because it works out for you.

Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. I am not calling it socially deviant, but just that it deviates from the norm. Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans. Union between parents equals solid home for new humans to develop in. For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.

Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.

Create your own traditions. Say, "hey, we created this thing called Bayrog and its basically a life long union of love between people of the same gender," and then fight for the rights of Bayrog but don't go "hey, change that ancient thing you got because I want to be part of it without meeting the one piece of criteria set out."

My point (if you could call it that) is you don't have the right to expect change in something that isn't yours, but you do have the right to create something that is. I'm all for every person on Earth finding love in anyone, but thats really not what this is a debate about. Straight America (the majority anyway) isn't mad about gays being coupled together legally. Straight America is upset that Gay America is trying to steal their thing.

Viva Le Bayrog

G

It is an incorrect statement to say that Nader is the only candidate in favor of allowing gay marriage. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton both advocate full marriage -- not "civil unions," but legal marriage.

I'd wager that the Libertarian candidate is in favor of allowing it, too -- or at least in favor of the government butting out of the question -- though I don't see a statement on the issue on the party's Web site.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing the excuses in favor of these laws and amendments banning gay marriage.

"It goes again religion", "ruins family values", etc etc etc.

A load of bull if you ask me.

Half the people in this country get divorced. So if we let gays and lesbians get married, and they have more success at it than heteros, all the better.

The line about marriage being a religious thing is about as baseless as saying Gore invented the internet.

Marriage was around long before religion came along to screw it up.

And no, "civil union" will NOT work.

It's just giving gays and lesbians yet another stamp saying that they are second-class citizens.

novice posted:

I'm all for gay America creating their own life-long union between two people. Their own version of marrigage. I would back it and respect it entirely. I do however disagree with gay America deciding that the clasical idea of marriage should change for them.

Yeah, because "seperate but equal" really held up against, oh, Brown vs. the Board of Education...

novice further posted:

I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you.

Except that "under god" wasn't added to the pledge until (if I recall correctly) the 1950s. "Under god" itself was an alteration to the original Pledge.

just further proof that its all a right wing conspiracy.

I fully supoport gay marriage. I think once gay marriage, gays in the military, and sexuality being protected against job discrimination, there will be gay equality. After that, they're on the same playing field as the rest of us.

Below is a letter I had published in Newsday against the whole concept of "defense of marriage" being used to ban gay marriage. I'd like to add that if a traditional marriage dissolves because that couple can't handle the idea of gays being married, that marriage had a lot bigger problems than two men or two women marrying each other.

And here's the letter:

"With the Massachusetts high court ruling allowing gay marriages to finally take place, critics are once again rallying behind the phrase "defense of marriage," as if the ruling will end existing marriages and prevent any others from taking place. This is absurd. The most frequent arguments against homosexual marriage -- it's not what God wanted, it's never been done, it will diminish marriage for the rest of us, it's not healthy for any children -- were used with the first interfaith marriages, and the first interracial marriages; and the institution of marriage didn't vanish. Allowing gays to marry will evolve the meaning of marriage, recognizing the right of loving, adult couples to create a legal, loving bond with each other."

I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Considering that "under God" wasn't in the Pledge in the first place, it's removal is quite acceptable and should be done immediately.

IIRC, the only reason it's there was to go against the standard Communist hysteria of the time.

No surprise though that I think the Bush Administration is just modern day McCarthyism on display.

Seems to me that instead of a "war on love", it's more a "war on semantics". Churches have been performing marriage ceremonies longer than a lot of countries (including the US) have been around. Let the people that want to be married by clergy do so and call it marriage. Let people that are non religious or don't fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.

From President Bush's speach...

"The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

I still don't believe this proposed constitutional ammendment will ever get close to ratification. But the states can chose their own way to recognize same-sex partners. My guess is that there will be an eventual equity in the states as well.

And what president signed the original Defense of Marriage act? No, it wasn't G. W. Bush.

There was an episode of Cheers where Woody is trying to get a raise from Rebecca. She is only too happy to give it to him; she was afraid he wanted a title.

Rebecca eventually relents though, and gives Woody the title of Senior Bartender, or something similar.

The point I am not getting to all that well is that this is a little more than just a moral issue. It is indeed a moral issue, but don't forget that there are tax breaks for married people, and allowing same sex life partners married status would put a further drain on our allready failing insurance system.

I think it is a mistake to forget the financial aspect of this debate.

From a proud Conservative.

Without making any judgments on marriage, civil unions, living together, casually dating, or flirting glances.... I would hesitate to amend the constitution for anything. It's fine the way it is. Did we learn nothing from prohibition?

Let's also consider the broader implications of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You have the Constitution being amended to include discrimination, instead of removing it. You have the federal government acting very intrusively in the private lives of its citizens, something Republicans have claimed to be against. ("The government is best which governs least," I believe.) You have a President lumping all judges who interpret the law differently than him as "activist judges" who are eroding the concept of marriage.

Oh yeah, the economy is still in the toilet, U.S. troops are still dying in Iraq, the defecit is ballooning instead of being cut (as Bush promised), state budgets are being slashed to compensate to tax cuts for the wealthiest, and there are more unemployed, uninsured Americans than ever. So let's have the President worrying about keeping gay couples from marrying. Otherwise the country could be in *real* trouble.

It seems relevant to add this little article to the discussion, which originated from Gator GSA at http://www.GatorGSA.org/gaymarriage.html:

Why Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Allowed:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

PAD summed up my thoughts on this subject beautifully.

I don't get it. I understand the moral arguments, but as a Christian, I don't agree with them. I don't understand what Bush and some people are afraid of. Yeah, we hear that the institution of marriage is sacred, but as Jon Stewart alluded to last night, it doesn't affect the ability of straight persons to marry in front of millions of people for money. ;-) The institution was sacred, at one point in our history. Now, with a divorce rate of around 50% and the institution routinely being disregarded or abused, why not let two people who love one another marry? What are we afraid of?

And if we're that serious about preserving the sanctity of the institution of marriage, why not make it illegal to obtain divorces?

Honestly, I think it comes down to moral bigotry, and nothing more. I was actually talking to my sister this weekend, and she said that the only reason she opposed it was because it might lead to higher insurance costs because more people would be covered who might not actually "love" one another. I replied, "Um...that can happen now. Two platonic friends of the opposite sex could conceivably marry to receive insurance benefits." She thought for a second and said, "Well, you're right. That's true." Other than that, she seemed to agree with me.

Bottom line: I've heard the arguments, but I think for many people it boils down to moral bigotry. Some people don't want to acknowledge that homosexuals can have equally fulfilling and lasting and significant relationships with one another as straight people. I'm not saying its malicious or mean-spirited, just that at bottom, it's what this issue is about for many.

I just hate the role that religion plays in it. I have to sigh when people claiming to provide the "Christian perspective" start talking about the issue and the moral implications. There is no one Christian "perspective," no one Jewish "perspective," no single Islamic "perspective." Yeah, the text of the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran all speak against homosexual acts, but personally, I'm a Christian who lives in more enlightened times and believes in a God of love, and if God is a God of love, why would He want his children to be unhappy? Why would he want to deny them the joy that comes with love?

I just don't understand. I honestly don't.

**Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans. Union between parents equals solid home for new humans to develop in. For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.

Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.**

This is one my brother tryed on me...gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because marriage is to propogate the species.

So my question is 'Why do we allow straight people that can't have children to be married?'

If marriage is just to be egg+sperm=baby, then I have friends that shouldn't be married because, for various reasons they can't have kids.

People work really hard to try to act like they aren't bigots, but in reality what they are saying is 'those people aren't like me, they are wrong'.

I don't understand how anyone--including Bush--can advocate a ban on gay marriage. And Kerry's no different. "Let's have civil unions instead." Because separate but equal is a time honored tradition in bias, and apparently gays are the new Negros.

Americans, as a whole, will be ready for gay marriages when Americans as a whole are ready to eliminate gender-specific bathrooms (Starship Troopers, anyone?).

I well and truly want to take the Declaration of Independance and smack Bush upside the head with it a few dozen times.

This gay marriage ban is ridiculous and an insult to everything our country was founded upon.

And if Bush thinks athiests aren't true citizens, I tell him to come and do his worst. I stopped believing in gods of any kind way back when... And seeing what's becoming of the world has only convinced me more than ever. What's the worst he can do? Declare War Against Non-Believers?

Yeesh, and people wonder why terrorists and other countries hate us. Our own leaders can't even obey the dictates of our country's charter.

I read the headline on CNN.com this morning and grew furious. This President...he...I can't...

AHHHRGG!!!!

Damn, that didn't make me feel any better.

...still stewing...

I would really like an answer to Mitch's question myself. How does a gay marriage invalidate a straight marriage? I just don't understand.

For me, personally, it's never been a question of 'the straights have it, so I want it.' As long as I can remember, I've always felt that I would find someone I loved and get married. Why should that be denied to me? Am I not an intelligent, caring, and loving individual, with the same capacity to love, honor, cherish, and obey as any other?

Random Thought #1: I wonder, how much this is a personal thing, versus a political. I mean, how much does the government (and corporations, in general) stand to lose, if another whole group of people in the country become eligible for marriage tax breaks and such...?

Random Thought #2: If marriage is about sperm + egg, as it has been mentioned, should couples who don't plan to have children be allowed to marry?

Random Thought #3: As to "the Gays" stealing from "the Straights", ummm, how childish is that?? Not to mention, how is it that marriage belongs solely to them? Have they worked for it, or is it just something that has always been there?

Last random thought... supposedly, this is about protecting the sanctity of marriage, correct? Then why are divorces legal?

There was an episode of Cheers where Woody is trying to get a raise from Rebecca. She is only too happy to give it to him; she was afraid he wanted a title.

The irony here is that Rebecca was scamming Woody. She eventually convinced him to accept a title instead of a raise.

Whew... In between trying to work and pound out the above rant... it looks like quite a few people brought up the same points I was ranting about...

Let people that are non religious or don't fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.

I'm sorry, does this then mean that my marriage to my wife is null and void?

We didn't go to any religious official for his "approval" of my marriage.

So, your argument doesn't hold water - plenty of people are MARRIED without religion being involved whatsoever.

I have no problem with gay marriage but keep in mind that 75% of the US does not support homosexuals at all let alone marriage.

that isn't the percentage of people burning gays at the stake, its the percentof people who would just not have them exist if they could

Simple solution: eliminate all goverment connections to ALL marriages. After all, a marriage is a religious ceremony. Get rid of the state licenses, the tax breaks, etc for married couples. Leave it to the church only. Then if a particular church want to marry a man to a rock or a fish, whatever, it won't really matter!!

Now, I'm being sarcastic, of course. Me and my girlfiend plan on getting married and, naturally, want the license, church ordained ceremony, taxes breaks, the whole nine yards. But, the way I see it, if this issue isn't resolved, then what I said above maybe the only solution.

Novice: Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little. Create your own traditions.

Yeah, because New Coke and Olestra worked out so well... It's not just that homosexuals want the legal right to wed; they want to share the same prestige a heterosexual union enjoys. Creating their own tradition is tantamount to accepting a second-class citizen status. That's what this is all about: one group is being excluded from enjoying the rights and privledges of the whole, and the proposed Constitutional Amendment would ensure that exclusion. The Constitution and its amendments currently ennumerate what rights American citizens do have... should we start amending it to ennumerate the rights we don't have?

And why does it have to be gay America and straight America? Can't it just be America? You know, 'with liberty and justice for all?'

-That OTHER John Byrne

"I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don't like it, don't use it, but don't expect everything to change because it works out for you."-novice.

Um, didn't it come out during that whole stink many months back that the original version of the pledge *didn't* have that wording until several years later?

"For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology"-novice.

Except that, biologically speaking, a sperm and egg can create new life and be raised happy and healthy regardless of marriage.

Paraphrazing The Daily Show episode I mentioned earlier, Steven Colbert said "My wife and I got out of spite because it's the one thing gays can't do". Or something like that.

And, again referencing the same show, if we make an amendment to ban gay marriage, shouldn't we make one to ban infidelity/adultery? How about banning married individuals from going to strip clubs?

Monkeys.

How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.

If you want to be married in the eyes of God get married by a member of the clergy.

Makes perfect sense to me -- I've been thinking for quite a while that separating the legal and religious aspects of marriage would be an ideal way to go.

(Of course, it takes a wedge issue off the table, which is probably why no one would propose doing that...)

Bush doesn't believe in a separation of church and state. Neither do many members of his inner circle. Remember when Bush the elder said that atheists weren't real citizens?

I certainly do. I'd only recently become old enough to vote at the time. Made that choice pretty easy.

TWL

I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don't like it, don't use it, but don't expect everything to change because it works out for you.

Except, of course, that "under God" was ADDED to the Pledge about fifty years ago as a way of separating us from those darned godless commie types. By your logic, those two words should never have been added and Michael Newdow's suit is only taking things back to the way they were.

I see your point about marriage, though I'm not certain I agree with it -- you just picked a fairly bad example in this case.

TWL

Bush's pronouncement is so not-smart on so many levels that it boggles the mind.

It doesn't make political sense to me -- my guess is that it will cost him more moderate-Republican votes than the Democrats will lose to Nader.

It doesn't make historical sense; marriage is not the simple equation Bush suggested -- not in Islam, not in ancient China or Egypt (or Ireland!), not in Mormon practice.

And it doesn't make legal sense -- the real reason that judges are visiting these issues isn't activism; it's that the body of law on equal protection and non-discrimination is colliding with the body of law regulating the legal, social, and economic benefits available to married persons.

There are numerous sound legal and political reasons to better define and distinguish the religious and civil components of marriage -- but a Constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go about it.

Scripture teaches that homosexual sex (and all sex outside of marriage) is wrong. But quoting Scripture verses fails to convince secular people and feeds the stereotype that people like myself are Bible-thumping hicks.

Rather I, and many others, try to argue on grounds of the common good. And our case is powerful.

Lets start with a premise everyone agrees upon...Family breakdown is a bad thing. Advocates of same-sex "marriages" don’t disagree but deny that changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Who is harmed, they ask, if the quiet gay couple next door acquires legal rights formerly reserved to husbands and wives? After all, they argue, it is just a matter of civil rights that the same-sex couple should receive the same legal treatment.

But look where expanding the definition leads. Why stop with two gays? How about one man and three women? (Polygamy is now outlawed, but how long could it remain so?) What about a communal group? And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant? Clearly in time, the traditional family declines.

and apparently gays are the new Negros.

It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Society often confers special benefits in order to achieve a social goal, as with tax incentives for investment or exemptions for nonprofits, which do social good. Does this give other taxpayers grounds to claim discrimination? Of course not.

This is why throughout Western history benefits have been reserved for heterosexual marriage. It serves the public interest to encourage the institution that propagates the human race.

But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships.

But the real flaw in their case is the natural order. Kids have a hard-wired psychological need for two parents, one of each sex. That is not to denigrate single parents; many go to heroic lengths to give stability to children. (Prisoners’ families struggling to keep the family together know this.) But children raised without a father or a mother experience real loss. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council has written of the lesbian activist who told a meeting of the like-minded that her two-year-old son, conceived through artificial insemination, had one day said, out of nowhere: "My daddy is far away." If he had been raised by two men, he would have missed his mother just as much. Kids need both.

What is really happening here? As in the movements for easier divorce, emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.

Kids need both.

What's your point?

Kids today aren't getting both, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with homosexuals in the world getting married or otherwise.

It's like some people expect that the banning of homosexual marriages will suddenly fix the problems with heterosexual marriages.

God are they f*cking wrong.

Craig J. Ries, You need to read my post again. I never said that the ban of homosexual marriages would solve the problems with familys today.

In fact I wrote:

As in the movements for easier divorce, emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.

Well, now, hold on there.

1) What IS so wrong about polygamy? "My religion tells me so" isn't an acceptable answer in my book.

2) What would be wrong with a communal marriage, other than religious objections?

What incentive was there for me and my wife to get married?

For one thing, social approval from our friends and family, which will still be there regardless of what kind of marriages are allowed, for one thing.

Legal rights to property, visitation, health care, etc were part of it, but much of it was both our sets of parents were married, and we both expected to be married at some point. Just as much as we both expected to go to college. NOT getting married once I'd found the One simply wasn't part of my thinking.

But the thing is, even if there were homosexual or group marriages... what we wanted was a two-person marriage between US. I don't really care what other units do, as long as they pay their taxes, obey the law, and if they have kids, treat them well and raise them to be good citizens... that's all I can hope for.

I reject the (in my view unsupported) premise that the traditional family will decline (more than it already has!) due to gay marriage or even polygamy.

Show some actual evidence for that statement, and I might consider it.

If you want to blame anything for the decline of the traditional family, blame economic opportunity for women. That dratted Rosie the Riveter just ruined many marriages!

/sarcasm.

It's not like polygamy, f'r instance, is some new-off-the-block institution in human society... it's been around a long time. If it didn't work to ensure resource allocation and breeding of children, it wouldn't have ever happened. But it has, in society after society. And I, for one, don't consider it morally wrong. Who am I to say that? If it's voluntarily entered into, and actually benefits those in the relationship... why is it my business?

If you're against the predominantly short-term nonexclusive character of many gay relationships (as if that doesn't also describe nonmarried heterosexual behavior)... why wouldn't there be an advantage to legally binding two men or two women together, so that they'd need to go to divorce court (just like us straights) to prove that they really should desolve their union?

Isn't that a higher standard of togetherness than a purely voluntary relationship?

I come from a Catholic background and have always been more conservative then less. The Catholic church and most other christian chrches preach that marriage between any combination other than man and woman is wrong. That is their right and within the confines of their churches they get to determine who gets married. On the other hand my beliefs are, exactly that, my beliefs - not the beliefs of everone in this country. Those beliefs should NOT be imposed on those who do not believe what I believe. That is the thing with religion if you are a member of a certain faith, in theory, you live by the rules of that faith. So an individul church can and should deny a marriage between a same sex couple if it is against their faith. That is one of many reasons why there are civil wedding ceremonies. People who do want to get married within a particular faith can still be joined together (and have all the legal benefits of being married), not in the eyes of God but under the authority of a state. To me there seems to be no reason other than religious ones to prevent people of the same sex from getting married. The notion of ammending the constitution to preclude gay and lesbian marrianges is simply ludacris. Because when it really comes right down to it other than the couple, their family and friends, who really cares if a couple of the same sex gets married. Does it hurt me? Does it hurt you? No. And that seems to be the reason for the constitution - in one way or another to protect us from being hurt by others, by companies or by the government.

And for me, most damning of all...how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do?

Because that's your interpretation of what the constitution says about seperation of church & state. The other interpretation which could be linked back to the founding father's version is that the government cannot setup and create it's own religion -- kind of what the settlers were trying to get away from, hmmm?

And it's not that the government is telling religious institutions what to do, it's trying. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren't the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law and create their own constitutional amendment that allows gay marraige. It's only now after laws have been broken by activist judges and rogue mayors that decide breaking the law is ok that this amendment has to be done.

It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM but by god himself because George Bush is a Republican and he is following the polls in the country, (which he has rarely done to the extent of Clinton who polled people on where he should go on vacation and what he should wear) and his beliefs, it is a problem, it is the harshest thing in the world to do to these people, and he has no business doing this. And most of all, as was posted above, it's "a right wing conspiracy".

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Craig J. Ries, You need to read my post again. I never said that the ban of homosexual marriages would solve the problems with familys today.

But you insinuate that it will continue to exasperate the current problems with families today, yet you have little in the way of proof beyond "kids need both parents".

Which is why I commented on the fact that kids aren't getting that as it is, so how could it even be a consideration?

Why doesn't anybody consider the fact that having two parents, regardless of sex, is better than one?

If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren't the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law and create their own constitutional amendment that allows gay marraige.

How can you get a law saying yes when there are already existing laws (on the state level) saying no? You can't.

Which is why they've done what they've done, and I salute them for it.

"And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant? Clearly in time, the traditional family declines."-Tichy

I didn't realize marriage was such a horrible burden that incentive was needed other than love to partake in one. I think traditional families have already declined, and nothing is going to get us back to where they were. Times they are a changin', we all need to adapt and keep moving forward.

"It serves the public interest to encourage the institution that propagates the human race." -Tichy

Propagating the human race...don't we already have an overpopulation problem? Aren't we rapidly depleting natural resources, let alone running out of spaces to house people? Homosexuality should be encouraged in some ways, because it's like natural population control. We use science and medicine to prevent diseases from keeping our population in check, and we don't have any natural predators at this point, and I guarantee there will never be a "human hunting season". Gay families could adopt all the orphaned children. I do agree to a certain extent that a young child needs the interaction with and influence of a parent of both sexes, but two parents of one sex are better than no parents at all.

And as far as the comment that most gay couplings are short-term and nonexclusive, either/or 1) you don't know many gay people 2) you haven't closely examined the heterosexual divorce rate and the growing numbers of infidelity.

Monkeys

I'll speak only for myself. When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed (in 1996?)... I was paying precisely zero attention to politics. None. It wasn't relevant to my life at the time.

I sincerely doubt that "not one person" spoke up about it at the time... but ... I wasn't paying attention then.

Why aren't the gays demanding a Constitutional Amendment? Well, for one thing, legal marriage rights aren't enshrined in the Constitution, but in state and federal law. Why should there NEED to be a constitutional amendment specifically permitting gay marriage? That's a weak argument, I have to say.

... I also don't think anyone arguing for gay marriage is saying that any Church will be either required to recognize or required to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people.

Me and my wife had a civil ceremony, with a civil practitioner. Are we somehow not "really" married because we weren't married by a priest / rabbi / etc? Y'all can have your own opinions on that matter, but in the eyes of the law, we're quite married thankyouverymuch... and that's what I care about. The eyes of the law and our friends and families.

I'm sure there are religious folk who would say that you're not "really" married if your union wasn't blessed by the Church, and they're entitled to their opinion, but I'd suggest they not say such to my face.

Does any Church need to recognize OUR marriage? Nope. Do I care if they don't? Nope. I care if the IRS recognizes it, I care if hospitals / doctors recognize it, I care if the health insurance industry recognizes it.

Whether any particular Church or religious person recognizes my marriage matters to me not on whit.

Or not "one" whit as the case may be. (grumble grumble lack of editing function grumble grumble)...

James Tichy: It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Whoa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the denial of the equal right of a person or group to do something the very definition of a civil rights issue?

But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships. Wow... so then, by that rationale, everyone who was a teenager between 1969 and the closing of Studio 54 shouldn't be allowed to raise children, either?

...[C]hildren raised without a father or a mother experience real loss. So do people who were raised without brothers and sisters, or people who were born without arms or legs, but that doesn't automatically prevent them from becoming stable, productive, loving people.

Sorry to pick on you, James, but some of your statements invite criticism.

-tOjb

I'm all for gay America creating their own life-long union between two people. Their own version of marrigage. I would back it and respect it entirely. I do however disagree with gay America deciding that the clasical idea of marriage should change for them.

It doesn't change for them. Marriage is the union between two people, theoretically in love with each other. It means they are recognized as married - they get to file their taxes together, and they recieve tax breaks because of their union.

If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you.

Dude, no one's altering ANYTHING. They just want to be married.

Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans.

Uh, no, that's called "reproduction." You don't have to be married to reproduce, you just have to have unprotected sex with a fertile member of the opposite gender.

For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.

No, marriage is based on love. Sexual attraction is based on biology.

Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.

You're the one who wants to change the tradition, not them. Homosexuals want to be able to marry the people they love - just like other people have throughout history. You are the one saying "no, too bad, we're going to forbid it." Why? Let's face it - you're opposed to it because it creeps you out.

Straight America (the majority anyway) isn't mad about gays being coupled together legally. Straight America is upset that Gay America is trying to steal their thing.

Yeah, what's next, they're going to want to drink from the same water fountain as us? Damn them!

It takes courage for you to support something so absurd as banning gay marriages, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all about changing people's legal rights because somebody finds it creepy that two guys or girls want to be legally married.

It sounds to me that it could be the same exact thing as marriage - carry the same legal benefits for the couple, entail the same sort of ceremony, but you don't want to call it "marriage."

That's just weird.

Although Balder, if you think Bush doesn't follow the polls closely... I'd suggest you're either naive, or have listened to too much propaganda; and it's rich hearing you complain about "Clinton timing his vacations to polls" when Bush here has taken the most vacation time of any President in US history to my knowledge.

Good thing to complain about.

From Jeff

Let people that are non religious or don't fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.

From Craig J. Ries

I'm sorry, does this then mean that my marriage to my wife is null and void?

We didn't go to any religious official for his "approval" of my marriage.

So, your argument doesn't hold water - plenty of people are MARRIED without religion being involved whatsoever.

My arguement is saying exactly what you and your wife did. It doesn't mean it's null and void. It holds the exact same rights as a marriage officiated by the clergy.

My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).

Monkeys,

Yeah, that piece last night was brilliant! I don't know if Colbert writes his own stuff or not, but eitherway, his delivery on it is awesome

My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).

But some people want to allow gays to marry while calling it something else so it isn't *quite* marriage.

Becuase, you know, marriage is a religious thing, ya?

Peter wrote:

>How can anyone claim they are compassionate and deny people in love?

I think this firmly puts the nail in the "compassionate conservative" coffin.

In regards to the tax breaks married people supposedly get, what are they? Up until this year, the standard deduction for a married couple was less than twice that of a single person. That seems like a penalty to me. This year the standard deduction for a married couple is exactly twice that of a single person. So were there other tax breaks in other areas?

This will be my longest post ever, but there are so many points to address.

How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.

Except many states are passing laws to PREVENT this from happening, as well as laws being passed that say 1 state will not recognize the marriage from another state. This is what the "defense of marriage" act is about - outlawing one state from recognizing the gay marriage from another state. And the constitutional amendment would make it illegal for any state to allow gay marriages, wether that state wants to or not.

but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you.

So the people who opposed discrimination in the 60's were wrong to do so because discrimination existed before they were born? Or a hundred years earlier people who opposed slavery were wrong because slavery existed before they were born?

By this logic, The United States should still be a collection of British colonies becausethey were British colonies before the founding fathers were born & they shouldn't have tried to change that.

Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans

WRONG! This concept is called procreation. Marriage is not required for procreation, so why should procreation be required for marriage? If procreation were required for marriage, then the elderly, impotent, barren, or anyone else who cannot, or chooses not to have children would not be allowed to marry.

hey, change that ancient thing you got because I want to be part of it without meeting the one piece of criteria set out

So Martin Luther & all members of prostant religions are wrong?

Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little. Create your own traditions.

That's fine if the new traditions will have the same legal protections & benefits as the old-age traditional ones. Otherwise gays only have what they have now - which is no legal protections for their lifelong partners.

If you want to blame anything for the decline of the traditional family, blame economic opportunity for women.

Actuallt, Pat Robertson already did this a couple of years ago. During the recession of the first Bush, Robertson was talking about the reasons for the shortage of jobs. "Women in the workplace, taking jobs from men" was one of them. Corporate downsizing, factories being moved out of the country were not.

And it's not that the government is telling religious institutions what to do, it's trying.

No it's not. A state sanctioned marriage would not be required to be recognized by the churches. They would be civil marriages, not religious.

If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren't the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law

What the hell do you think they've been trying to do?

It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM

1) So all of a sudden, Clinton did it, so it's okay?

2) Plenty of people opposed it. But it didn't get much media coverage because it was still a relatively new issue at the time.

But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships.

I guess we'd better not encourage them to marry, then, right?

As a gay man, I have to say it just made my day to read so many intelligent, thoughtful comments from a group of mostly straight men. Thank you guys.

I hope everyone here votes on Election Day.

I'm a gay man with a "spouse" of five years. I want marriage because its something concrete that I can announce to all my friends and family. I am married (now give me my wedding gifts). I also want marriage so I can refer to my husband as my "husband" not my life partner or my civil unionized male significant other.

I also want to avoid what happened a year ago when my "spouse" was hospitilied after a car accident and I was not concidered family. The Hospital had to contact his mother hundreds of miles away.

When we enter old age I want to be able to inherit his social security(ha ha like that will be around).

I do feel like a second class citizen sometimes. I wonder if science had a way to correct the gay gene would America look at it as correcting a deviant behavior or genocide.

I have stated how changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Your responses are not deniels but rather "So what? Heterosexual marriages are having their own problems." This, in your mind, seems to put me in my place.

Rather I'm stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society. To stretch the word marriage to fit any living situation is to make the word lose all meaning. And to ask the government to comply with such a scheme is to ask it to abdicate one of its most important responsibilities. When the government sanctions marriage, it is recognizing that marriage is the foundational structure of our society. It is not just a “private” institution; it’s a public one. The well-being of children, the emotional and physical health of adults, even the state of the workforce—all of these are tied to the existence of stable marriages and families. Obviously, the government has a legitimate interest in promoting the public good.

Anarchy in the area of marriage, as in any other area, leads to chaos, and the unraveling of society.

Oh, and proof-reading after you post is a bad idea. Please forgive my errors! :)

My wife and I have had a great deal of difficulty having children, and have not yet been successful. Are you (novice, for example) saying that we should not be married because of our failure to procreate?

For those against gay marriage because of the PROMISCUITY issue... I believe there is a reason they are called the "bonds of matrimony." Marriage is a legally binding commitment to the other person. Of course, people break those commitments, but it is much harder to divorce a spouse than it is to "break up with" a boy- or girlfriend.

I know that the fact of my marriage has helped me uphold my commitment in difficult situations when, lacking a solemn vow, I might have left. Instead of leaving, I stayed and honored my commitment. Why should we deny the right to make this legally binding bond available to everyone?

Gay marriage => polygamy, bestiality, etc... Oh, come on. What, is gay marriage a "gateway institution"? Is it the equivalent of marijuana, that famous gateway drug? Gay marriage does not change any of the basic precepts of marriage: Exactly two SENTIENT people legally bound as members of the same family. The idea of dividing up our society based on sex is as bigoted and ridiculous as dividing our society based on race, intelligence, or religion. While individuals can discriminate all they want, the government must not discriminate. Since ONLY the idea of sex-based marriage is being challenged, and not the BASIC STRUCTURE of the legal arrangement itself, there is no reason to believe that gay marriage will lead to bestiality.

This argument is actually based on the notion of homosexuality as "deviant" like polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. If we allow one form of "deviance," it follows that we will soon allow others. Notice, however, that while most equal treatment clauses note that a particular institution may not discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, creed, or sexual orientation, they never argue that it is okay to have sex with animals or children. Bestiality and pedophelia involve a NON-CONSENTING participant; gay marriage does not do so any more than straight marriage. Therefore, the main connection mainly comes from religious beliefs, which do not justify legal action.

Wake up. The vast majority of this nation's fear of homosexuality is based on RELIGIOUS BELIEF, not on a demonstrable danger to the welfare of society. While democracy is based on majority rule, we must also avoid one of the chief pitfalls of democracy, which is majority tyrrany. We must protect the rights of the minority whether we like them or not.

This is a civil rights issue. Period.

Eric

Rather I'm stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.

Part of the problem, James, is that you too also automatically associate a marriage as a family that must have children.

I'm married but plan to have no children. So, children is a non-factor.

People seem to forget those little bits of "non-factor" possibilities when discussing this issue.

Maybe people should just get over the fact that marriage isn't only about adding to the gene pool down the road.

How about we accept the amendment....and then also change the law that there has to be a civil union before any marriage benefits are incurred? Make marriage legally the lesser prospect!

I could really care less about what two consenting adults wish to do. Straight, gay, bi, whatever. Two people are asking for the world to recognize that love is love, and that they'll be spending the rest of their lives together!

I'm STILL voting for Pat Paulsen.

Oh, yeah. PS and stuff:

It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM

Oh, boy.

1) Just because the media didn't hit it hard doesn't mean no one spoke up.

2) The DOM Act (ha!) didn't effectively change the status quo. If I pass a law tomorrow making it illegal to murder puppies, would I make news?

3) Clinton, like Kerry, was a politician. To have taken a stand on such an unpopular issue would have seriously hurt his future and his party's future. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it's the way of the world.

4) YOUR OWN EXAMPLE PROVES THE NEED FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Working "within the system" when the basic beliefs of the majority are against the minority to which you belong has never been an effective tool. Ever. Should African-Americans have kept working as slaves and "worked the system" on their abundant spare time? Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and filed a complaint? Should the American colonists have tried to overcome their taxation problems by becoming elected to Parliament?

We are a nation of revolutionaries. That we now try to fight wars without violence whenever possible is a tribute to Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but it does not change the fact that our nation was founded in revolution and protest. We should never forget that it has always been the (officially) voiceless MINORITY that has pushed for the big changes that we now all take for granted.

Sorry for the all caps up there.

Eric

James Tichy: I have stated how changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Your responses are not deniels but rather "So what? Heterosexual marriages are having their own problems."

I'd say the vast majority to your responses weren't "so what?"s, but rather "that's got nothing to do with being homosexual"s. Each of the examples you cited as contributing to the breakdown of families (single parents, short-term relationships) would be there even if homosexuality didn't exist. Therefore, it stands to reason that forbidding gays to marry for the reasons you enumerated will have little ameliorating impact on the family breakdown phenomenon.

Not that I support families breaking down, or even deny that it's a problem (because it is), but to my mind, allowing gay marriage doesn't exacerbate those problems, either. Allowing gays to marry and have families would likely only add to the number of statistical examples without bucking the trend too far in either direction. In fact, I'd postulate that allowing gay families into the sample would show an increase in the number of cohesive families, if only because gays would want have something to prove and be on their 'best behavior' with their new-found right.

Which is basically a cold and clinical way to say that homosexual families may turn out to be more cohesive than heterosexual families, statistically, and that their statistics may boost the overall statistic when added into the sample. (Please note that I'm no statistician, so I'm probably misusing my terms and may very well be presenting my case wrong, though I trust you all can see what I'm trying to say.)

In any event, if you can't prove that allowing gay marriage would result in more family breakdown, rather than just supposing it will, you're basically just underlining faults that would be there regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

-tOjb

Check out the Onion web page. Hilarious.

--jay

James said, "Scripture teaches that homosexual sex (and all sex outside of marriage) is wrong."

That's right, it does. The same scripture also says that adulterers must be stoned to death, that one should not be a moneylender, and that certain foods should never be eaten, among many other teachings that are not being called for by anyone to be signed into law, much less amended to the Constitution.

This is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion of bigotry and discrimination that uses religion as a means of justification. If Bush was calling for the death penalty for adulterers, I'd believe this was a religious issue.

If you're going to be holier-than-thou, you don't get to cherrypick the parts of the Bible that happen to match your own prejudices.

---KRAD

Let's be brutally honest here. Bush didn't loudly proclaim his support for a constitutional amendment on marriage because it's what he truly believes. He did it because his job approval numbers are slipping, he's getting sniped at from all corners from those damned Democrats (who refuse to play by the rules and be nice while being smacked by Republicans), the war in Iraq is looking more miserable every day, and he had to do something, anything, that might rouse some support from his core followers.

Trouble is, I do believe this is going to backfire on him bigtime. For the first time in a long while, I think Dubya's hold on the White House is vulnerable. His people aren't used to playing defense, and it shows. Badly.

I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever. It's more than a license, it's a promise, a committment between two people that whatever may come, they will face it together. Never underestimate the power of a promise.

JSM

Children need love, protection, food, and shelter. What makes you think a gay or lesbian couple cannot provide all of these as well as a heterosexual couple? And your argument that a child needs a parent of each sex does not hold water. Many people have been raised as healthy happy individuals without the benefit of a typical nuclear family. This is the rebuttal, which others have made before me. No one has said so what, but have been denying the validity of your words. It truly angers me that instead of trying to find common ground and allowing people to live with dignity, some of these posters would rather champion the status quo. People should have the right to love and live the life they want, with all the benefits of the majority of society without having the government interfere.

I say screw it. No one gets married.

No one. I don't care if you're a straight man, a gay woman, whatever...let's just get rid of it. I'm tired of hearing people use the arguments James Tichy does above. My mother and father were married for three decades, and all I got out of their marriage was the pain of repeated beatings and psychotic ranting about Jesus. Gay people weren't to blame for that marriage falling apart...the heterosexual man and heterosexual woman in it (especially the man, who drank, cheated, and abused) were. No one else. Denying gay men and women the right to marry wouldn't have done squat to protect this particular child from that bad union, or millions of others.

I would have rather had two happy gay parents than two miserable straight ones.

I started writing this two hours ago and had to do real work in my office, so I appologize in advance for its probable appearance as a non-sequitor

Talking about the supposed non-permanence of gay relationships as an arguement against allowing gay marriage is flawed. It pre-supposes that all gay couples will desire to get married. I don't know how many millions of heterosexual people in this country are living together outside of wedlock, to say nothing of those who are simply "shacking up" on occasion. I'm sure a good many of their relationships lack a high degree of permanence as well. Some of these people go on to get married and contribute to the 50% divorce rate right along with the people who are virgins until their wedding night.

It's as false to say that every gay couple will desire marriage, as it is to say that every strait couple will. Also, claiming that gay marriages are inherently unstable is just wishful thinking, because noone knows. It hasn't happened in American Society. You can't use the current gay couples as a predictor because we don't know which ones are actually willing to commit to an actual marriage...because we haven't let them.

One last comment. The huge numbers of people flocking to the places that are currently issuing marriage licenses are not a good predictor either. The lines have the contributing factors that there are very few places that will issue the licenses and it's entirely unclear how long the practice will continue. Many couples are getting married now because they may never be able to get married at a later date. If I had to choose to get married within the the next month or never...well, it would be never for me because I'm not romantically involved with anyone at the moment but I understand established couples making the decision to marry now.

In case it isn't obvious by now, I'm in favor of letting gay couples marry and enjoying the same legal rights that strait couples get. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable reality-show of gay marriage elimination (I don't watch reality tv, but the commercials are annoying enough to evoke dread on this front) or the media frenzy of the first divorce of prominent gay couple, however.

Oh, and by the way, in case it wasn't obvious: I'm *for* greater economic opportunities for women, and I'm fine with incompatible people getting divorced.

But I do think that the fact that women aren't effectively stuck with whatever idiot they marry to make sure they and their hypotethetical kids are taken care of has a lot to do with the divorce rate.

And I'm sure not looking to roll back economic opportunites for women to keep the "traditional American family" together.

However, I'm all for people in bad marriages, especially ones without children, severing their union. IF it can be worked out, I believe it should, but at some point, if you're really incompatible, give it up!

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe people were actually having sex (and heterosexual couples were even having children!) way before there ever were religiously "ordained"/government approved marriages.

The "sacrament" of marriage is not (believe it or not) even a Christian invention, unless you believe the wedding Christ attended was the FIRST marriage (oh, but that would mean that Mary and Joseph were not married, and that would make Jesus a ....!).

Personally, I believe marriage is primarily a legal contract anyway. It's been used to seal land deals (various royal alliances) for thousands of years.

I am in favor of gay marriage (I am a married heterosexual male myself). This ridiculous ban is nothing more than bigotry and bullying, forcing someone else do do (or not do) something that doesn't affect them at all, simply because they don't like it.

And how is a family, gay or otherwise, paying MORE for family insurance coverage supposed to raise the cost of insurance (besides the thieving insurance companies raising prices just because they can)?

The stupidity of the human race just astonishes me!

When I got married, I did so after a life-long lack of a single everlasting relationship. Just like every other person who has ever been married.

BTW, thanks for the well stated assessment, KRAD. I have found myself unable to articulate that with a satisfactory degree of clarity. I'm so glad someone did.

Eric

And for me, most damning of all...how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do? It is not remotely analogous to a state removing the responsibility for a gravely ill child from Christian Scientist parents because they're hoping prayer might save their child when the doctors know medicine or an operation surely will. This is the Federal government telling every religion in the country, "We don't care what you believe: This offends our sensibilities, and we will stop you."

All the talk about this so far has been about the gay marriages, but I've debated that ad nauseum on the internet against fanatics for it to get me started again. This ethical dilemma, on the other hand, is a peach. I'm all for seperation of church and state, and the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, but in every case the state draws a line where the rights of others are infringed upon ie. no more human sacrifices allowed. In this particular case, the state has decided between the conflicting rights of the parent and the child (to religious freedom and best possible chance to live respectively). It comes down on the side of the child, basically because life is more important than anything else. Putting myself in the child's shoes, I can't say that I'm against it in the end- I hope the state would ignore my parents wishes in this case and cure me. And If I was the parents, then sure as hell no religion would be as important to me as the life of my child.

Just my thinking on the issue. And I hope it wasn't related to the health of your niece, to whom I wish a speedy recovery.

OK, ignore everything I just said because I just re-read what you wrote, and I seemed to have missed 1 tiny little word last time: "not"

My apologies.

And just one more thing regarding the idea that God said homosexuality is a sin: I have never heard him say it. Oh, I have heard over and over from other people what they say God has said, but until I speak directly to the guy face to face, it's just heresay. Frankly, I am far less likely to support someone's idea based on what they believe God said.

Homosexuality may or may not be a sin (most of the passages that I've been shown to say it was seem to be coming down on allowing sexual relations to interfere with your relationship with God, which happens as easily for heterosexual relationships as for homosexual); I tend to come down on the side of believing it is, but I also think premarital sex (and any number of other things that I've done -- that one just seems the most relevant) is a sin, so it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to condemn someone else when I'm far from perfect myself.

Regardless of whether it's a sin or not, though, the government has no business mandating morality. Honestly, even assuming that homosexual marriages are "immoral," forcing them to do what is "right" seems pretty counterproductive. Either they'll end up resenting me for trying, or they'll obey reluctantly, which isn't what God wants in the first place.

If it were up to me, I'd do away with the legal construct of a marriage and make all legal unions "civil unions." I'd allow churches to decide whether or not they want to marry a given couple, and whether they'd 'acknowledge' a couple's marriage by another church (or, even whether they'd consider a unioned couple a married couple or not).

If a couple wanted to get married, and they wanted legal rights, they'd go pick up their license, both of them would sign it (with witnesses or whatever), and then they'd be joined in the eyes of the law (and, most likely, their family and friends). If they also want to be joined in the eyes of their God, they can take that up with Him (or her) in whatever ceremony they feel He (or she) dictates.

Jeff:

My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).

Craig J. Ries:

But some people want to allow gays to marry while calling it something else so it isn't *quite* marriage.

Becuase, you know, marriage is a religious thing, ya?

Yes, and I believe I said that in my first post. Like I also said originally, the battle seems to be semantics. Work to change the laws to allow both a civil marriage for any couple, and a religious marriage for those that want the blessings of their church. Both would be recognized under the LAW as the same, with the same rights and responsibilities.

I think this firmly puts the nail in the "compassionate conservative" coffin.

I've known, virtually since Day One of the Bush Presidency, what "compassionate conservatism" means. It means compassion for conservatives.

Note: In the following, all italicized statements were made by Keith R.A. DeCandido.

This is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion of bigotry and discrimination that uses religion as a means of justification.

Agreed. (Aside: If anyone had told me when we were on Bert's Spider-Man list that I'd agree with you about anything, I'd've never believed it.)

This whole thing kind of makes me sick. First, Bush is arguing that these people don't have the same legal right to whatever benefits married couples get, which is completely separate from any moral issue at all. If Jane and John can join together and get $X off their taxes, then Jim and John should be able to do the same thing.

The only reason I can see for why one would want to refuse Jim and John that $X is pure and simple bigotry. Coming from anyone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ (whose primary message was pretty much to love everyone), that's just absurd.

If you're going to be holier-than-thou, you don't get to cherrypick the parts of the Bible that happen to match your own prejudices.

I agree again here, at least with the intent, though I'm not sure the examples you gave in your original post apply. At least in the KJV Bible that I use, there are reasons to believe that the laws you listed no longer apply, or have changed significantly.

James Tichy, your arguements are sound, very well thought out, and are correct. Good job!

There are some really stupid arguements on this page and several people clearly don't think things through before they post.

You know, all I see are people upset and saying they really have problems with both parties stances and Major issues. Along comes a person like Nader that has great ideas alot of people agree with and see as an intelligent possibility but noone wants to vote for him because they would be "throwing away their vote." If all the people that agreed with Nader would vote with they really believed and not out of fear of what we currently have than their would be real change in this country. All I see is huge disappointments with this country recently. The government is here to serve us, the peoples needs, not the other way around. I am just waiting for the great leader to rise up and lead some kind of revolution for change. That may be me being naive but I believe in this country to much to let the ideals that it strives and claims to be fall to peoples religious beliefs and money making contributors make the decisions for all of us.

My opinion is, the USA is less and less believable already when it preaches about the "land of the free" and US ideals. Should it indeed happen that people like Bush and Schwarzenegger get what they want and it is put into the constitution that same sex marriages are forbidden, this will only make matters worse. Already now, many people outside of the USA say, before Bush tells other countries what is right or wrong, he should look into a mirror.

By now, I don`t think Bush cares about that anyway.

For all the people who say a marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman because that's what the bible says - The bible says several things about marriage. Here are a pair of lists:

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

and

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=4064

I know the first one is a humor site, but the bible quotes are still legitimate.

Please be sure to note #2 on the second list, since pologamy is listed as one of the "what's next ..." items.

Thanks, PAD for saying what needs to be said.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, the president under no circumstances has the right to even attempt a change of the constitution to enshrine his own extremist-religion-based bigotry.

He really must be stopped.

Tichy claimed that no one was addressing the specific points of his original big post, so here goes. Quotes are from him.

"But look where expanding the definition leads. Why stop with two gays? How about one man and three women? (Polygamy is now outlawed, but how long could it remain so?) What about a communal group?"

Well, for a big part of this, that would be a reversal of historical trend. There's no reason to think it's going to lead to any of these except in certain paranoid delusions.

"And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant?"

So... you're arguing that people get married out of societal pressure, not love? My understanding was that most couples don't get together so they can file joint tax returns. Perhaps you feel differently.

"Clearly in time, the traditional family declines."

Not clear at all

"This is why throughout Western history benefits have been reserved for heterosexual marriage. It serves the public interest to encourage the institution that propagates the human race."

And we're pretty desperate right now - did you know that this planet's down to its last six billion people?! (Shamelessly ripped off from the Onion) But in real terms, I don't see any logic here - your assumption seems to be that if not for marriage, people wouldn't enter into long term, monogamous relationships for the purposes of raising children. And that's utterly ludicrous.

"But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships."

Well, using that logic, most heterosexual relationships are non-exclusive and short term. People date a lot more partners than they marry, in general. People in a short-term, nonexclusive relationship, gay or straight, don't generally get married. Unless they're a celebrity of some sort.

"But the real flaw in their case is the natural order. Kids have a hard-wired psychological need for two parents, one of each sex. That is not to denigrate single parents; many go to heroic lengths to give stability to children. (Prisoners’ families struggling to keep the family together know this.) But children raised without a father or a mother experience real loss. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council has written of the lesbian activist who told a meeting of the like-minded that her two-year-old son, conceived through artificial insemination, had one day said, out of nowhere: "My daddy is far away." If he had been raised by two men, he would have missed his mother just as much. Kids need both."

This is an argument about gay adoption and lesbians having children. Marriage is a totally seperate issue from this. I'm not going to argue about its accuracy; it's simply a tangential issue and doesn't belong in the discussion.

"What is really happening here? As in the movements for easier divorce, emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society."

Not everything needs to necessarily be about children. Adults have rights too, though some people like to forget this. Every aspect of this that impacts children is a seperate issue from the marriage one - and the two are almost entirely seperate. You're dragging kids into this to seize the moral high ground - and they aren't really a part of this.

You know more and more this guy worries me.I personally believe your religious and sexual beliefs are a private matter.The government has no right to interfere with what occurs between consenting adults.No matter how you feel about homosexuality this is wrong.Unfortunately Mr.Bush is going cheap by hitting on a sensitive button with a lot of people thinking he is making a moral stand and instead appears (once again )as a fool.Honestly the over whelming need to force your"christian "beliefs down everyone elses throat is ridiculous.Of course this is nothing new either is it?.Look at all the races and cultures that have been damaged or destroyed by god fearing christians thru out history.Really glad to know this is going to make our country better.Not gun control,stronger economy,better education or better health care .Give me a break

A lot of terrific arguments have already been made on this topic, so I'll only add a little bit here and there.

James Tichy's question:

And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant?

Um ... love? Companionship? A desire to spend one's life with someone?

I can assure you, James, that when I got married, "society's preferential status of heterosexual marriage" wasn't even on the top-20 reasons we had for doing so.

I know of one couple who chose to get married at the time they did because of tax considerations: my father and his second wife. (She also happened to be my wife's mother, but that's an entirely different and way too scary story. :-)

That marriage didn't last. Seems the "societal benefits" are not really providing sufficient inducement to stay married, despite James' claims.

The general argument that this is a "threat to the sanctity of marriage":

1) The government should not be in the business of protecting the SANCTITY of anything. Sanctity is a religious term, not a societal one.

2) More generally, the argument that marriage is somehow devalued by allowing same-sex couples to marry seems hard to defend. We have Britney Spears going off to Vegas and getting married for 48 hours on a bender. We have a "reality" TV show based on the American public voting for the perfect mate for a dwarf.

I find it 100% bugf*ck impossible to believe that those items somehow present less of a threat to marriage than letting my colleague and his partner of 20 years formalize their relationship with a wedding.

Everyone's god of peace and love, Balder:

It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM but by god himself because George Bush is a Republican and he is following the polls in the country, (which he has rarely done to the extent of Clinton who polled people on where he should go on vacation and what he should wear) and his beliefs, it is a problem, it is the harshest thing in the world to do to these people, and he has no business doing this. And most of all, as was posted above, it's "a right wing conspiracy".

1) Dude, breathe. That's all one sentence there until the last dozen words or so -- if you tried to voice it all aloud you'd die halfway through.

2) DOMA most assuredly drew fire when Clinton first signed it. Read up on history.

It didn't draw as much attention as this one does, however -- that's true. I see two reasons:

A) Society's attitudes have slowly changed over time. The prevailing sentiment is far more accepting of same-sex marriage than it used to be. People grow.

B) More crucially for Bush's initiative, Clinton did not propose irrevocably altering the Constitution for the sake of this issue. Bush is proposing (or at least supporting) exactly that.

To date, we've had precisely one amendment to the Constitution that restricted rights rather than expanding them: Prohibition. It didn't last.

That should do for now, I think.

TWL

Robin said: "(Aside: If anyone had told me when we were on Bert's Spider-Man list that I'd agree with you about anything, I'd've never believed it.)"

*falls over laughing*

Yeah, well, the law of averages was bound to catch up with us sooner or later..... *big grin*

Eric said: "BTW, thanks for the well stated assessment, KRAD. I have found myself unable to articulate that with a satisfactory degree of clarity. I'm so glad someone did."

No problemo. Glad to be of service. *grin*

---KRAD

Eric - You said:

"This argument is actually based on the notion of homosexuality as "deviant" like polygamy"

How insulting. Polygamy is "deviant"?? On what basis do you declare this. How dare you judge me!! I love two women, and they love me! I'm the new black! Gays and Hetero's alike are descriminating against me! What gives you a right to say marriage is about TWO people, huh?

/sarcasm off

Because everyone has a moral code, that is just as valid as everyone elses. Everyone has a "line". So those of you with less "lines" than others can quit acting all "enlightened" that you have some sort of mental superiority over those of us who maybe have a stronger moral character.

The fact of the matter is, society as a whole has always made a call of whats acceptable, and what's not, based on the majority and community standards. This is why murder is illegal (because honestly, without moral standards, murder is just darwinism, and the purest form of life), and theft, and polygamy, and fraud, and everything else that's illegal. Society as a whole, or the majority, has decided something is unacceptable. This is why the age of consent is 18 in the US, and is 16 in the UK. Someone made the MORAL decision, based on some sort of framework (ussually religious).

So gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the people in this country, which is why Kerry won't support it. But civil unions is. And please don't insult all the black people in this country by comparing that to being placed in the back of the bus. That's just plain ignorant, and insulting. When gays start getting rounded up and bussed to different schools, and made to use different water fountains, then we can discuss this.

Actually, Jerry, most of the examples you stated -- murder, fraud, theft, and so on -- are easy things to justify legislating against because there is demonstrable harm being done. That's a lot harder to say about gay marriage -- I don't think you're really trying to equate homosexuality with murder, but the statement's trying really hard to come across that way.

To those saying "wait, polygamy's next!" ... frankly, I tend to say "so what?" If all parties are consenting and fully aware of the situation, I honestly don't see much of a reason to forbid it. T'ain't my cup of tea -- but neither is golf, and I'm not planning on outlawing that any time soon.

TWL

Webster's Collegiate Dictonary defines marrage as, "the instution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of foundingand maintaininga family. It says NEN and WOMEN, not man and man or woman and woman.

Right. Because Webster's is, after all, the absolute arbiter of all that is free and good in a society.

Please.

Dictionaries evolve with time, y'know. As do societies ... one can hope.

TWL

So those of you with less "lines" than others can quit acting all "enlightened" that you have some sort of mental superiority over those of us who maybe have a stronger moral character.

Less lines? Acting enlightened? But you have the stronger moral character? I don't think you can generalize about that. I don't feel more enlightened, but do feel I know right from wrong. While you may disagree, I don't believe that gives you the right to feel "more moral" than thou.

To those saying "wait, polygamy's next!" ... frankly, I tend to say "so what?"

Polygamy is another way to treat woman as merchandise. Only there to take care of the man. Now, if it were to go both ways.... ;)

Peter:

I'm afraid I have mixed emotions on this one.

I'm all for national government not playing "big brother" to the country on an issue that at best should be handled by the individual states.

I'm all for the general principles of romance and love, and am still hoping to find my 'Ms. Right', or at least my 'Ms. As Close As Humanly Possible' someday.

But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God.

If two of the same sex want to date and actually fall in love, fine. There are plently of couples, regardless of the actual combination, that are just living together.

But if those same two same sex people want an actual marriage, I'm sorry folks, but I just cannot support that idea.

Nothing personal against those who are actually in a same sex relationship or support the idea under any 'freedom of' viewpoint, it's just the way I honestly feel about this issue.

And honest feedback and opinions are a lot of what this website is about and based on, right?

"When gays start getting rounded up and bussed to different schools, and made to use different water fountains, then we can discuss this." -Jerry.

How about getting beaten up or killed? Can we discuss the situation now?

Monkeys

Cameron, that definition also doesn't specifically and clearly say that the man is joined to the woman (or visa versa). Besides, who makes decisions based on the dictionary?

Monkeys

I think it's sad that two people who are in love, who love each other as much as my wife and I love each other (but never as well ;) can be denied marriage by their sexual preference. I'm so embarrassed about almost every government official's conservative take on this, as if they're secretly wishing that by banning gay marriage it'll stop people from being gay. As a Republican, I'm not surprised by this stance, but I'm so against it. It's just not right.

Besides, if a church decides that only a man & woman can marry (heck, in Utah a Mormon man can marry more than one woman), that's up to the church. I'm fine with that - but why can't same sex couples get married in a court of law?

I just don't get it. :/

If I offended any polygamists, I truly, deeply apologize.

Actually, while it isn't as clear as I'd like, note that I didn't go into any detail on polygamy. It's just part of that list of "deviancies" that people have bandied about. While it is so often used (as Karen noted) to treat women as merchandise, it does not inherently do so (since one woman could have several husbands, in theory).

I just didn't want to get into it. I actually have very little opinion one way or another.

Eric

This issue infuriates me. We are talking about discriminating against people that are in love. We are talking about denying them equal access under the laws. As has been noted in posts, when homosexuals in long-term relationships are denied hospital access, etc., then we have discrimination. I say when heterosexuals (of which I am one) treat marriage with "respect" then you can have a moral high ground. And I have seen some posts that make this into a financial issue. It's a moral issue, a religious issue, a "fabric of society and/or the family" issue, it's about the kids. No it's not. It is all just excuses. Your insurance costs are not going to go up. How could they? (Unless you are raising the dreaded spectre of AIDS. How 1980 of you.) I have seen more than one study that says the insurance cost is negligible. I say let homosexuals marry. See if they can do a better job than the heteros are doing right now, and furthermore...make them suffer like the rest of us. (I'm kidding, I'm happily married.) Think about it. If we are so worried about these "short-term" and "promiscuous" gays, then let them join into a marriage, and then they will be subject to the same laws when they want to get divorced--custody, property, and the whole nine yards. Personally, I feel that reality shows make more of a mockery of the institution of marriage, than all the gay unions put together. In fact, I go back to what I said at the top: we are talking about people in love. And getting to experience that ultimate act of being in love--committing for life to another human being. Shame on anyone who opposes it. Your reasons are hollow, and only reveal your own prejudices and short-sightedness. Sorry to name-call, but I am sick of it.

As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit "their" definition.

Personally, when all is said and done, I want government out of marriage completely. I want the only government support program to be civil unions, and let marriage be a function of churches. The courts can sort out the divorce issues.

Jerry

It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Society often confers special benefits in order to achieve a social goal, as with tax incentives for investment or exemptions for nonprofits, which do social good. Does this give other taxpayers grounds to claim discrimination? Of course not.

Considering the problems of overcrowding, pollution, and overpopulation that we already have, it's strange to conclude that people should actually be encouraged to produce children! Are you actually arguing that we have so few that we're in a crisis? I argue that the opposite is true: we have far too many people in the world right now. To achieve the "social goal" of reducing overpopulation, we should immediately end all tax incentives when a couple has children.

I think you're right about promotion of social goals not necessarily being discriminatory: equal opportunity tax breaks should be given to childless same-sex couples, childless heterosexual couples, and individuals of any religion (or nonreligion) who promise never to have children.

Or maybe we should realize that there is a social good involved in recognizing all couples that love each other. There is certainly social harm in discouraging love and commitment. When people talk about prohibiting gay marriage, it's obvious that the "social goal" they're promoting is one of legalized bigotry. They pretend the "social goal" is really about raising children. The second the Constitution is amended to exclude childless couples of all sorts, I will concede your point that it's an honest attempt to promote childrearing.

"How about getting beaten up or killed? Can we discuss the situation now?"

Only if we include every other social group that gets beat up, killed, or more, on a regular basis. And there are many. I was one of them, growing up with speach defects. There is a difference in things which happen which are illegal (like assault and murder) and are not in any way condoned, and the treatment of blacks in the firt 60 years of the last century. Talk to an older black person some time who lived through it, and see how they feel about their experiences being compared to the currect gay rights issue. There is no comparison.

Its like the current crop of people today who think they are "hippies" and activists, and think they are making the same type of committment and sacrifices people did in the 60s and 70s, when all they do is protest 2 weekends a year....

First, polygamy is only "treating women as property" by the strictest definition of the term. What about expanding it to include polyandry?

Second, as for the "Christian perspective":

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

-- The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 22, verses 36-40 (NIV)

(Of course, a lot of people who call themselves "Christians" might be astonished by Matthew 6: 5-8...)

Here's the way I look at it: I'm a 40-year-old straight man who is alone. I am acutely aware of what's missing from my life, and have spent most of my adult life searching unsuccessfully for the woman who can fill that giant, gaping void.

I have a couple of gay friends and acquaintances, including a committed couple who have been together for something like ten years.

I want all of my friends, regardless of sexual preference, to be happy in their lives. Consequently, the only position I can take on this issue is one favoring gay marriages. To do otherwise would be, in effect, telling those friends and acquaintances that I would deny them the very happiness that I've spent half my life looking for--for no other reason than the fact that they love someone who's not a member of the opposite sex. It would be telling them that who they are is ample justification for denying them that happiness. I think that'd make me a pretty shitty excuse for a friend.

Paul

First of all, my intention is not to argue with anything that has been said. I find that both sides have interesting and valid opinions. My intention is only to add my personal opinion to the discussion.

I am a gay man who believes very strongly in a religion that teaches that homosexual behavior is not in accordance with God's will. So, despite the fact that I am attracted to men, I have chosen to marry a woman whom I love very much and with whom I have a very satisfying relationship. She understands that I'm not quite as sexually attracted to her as I am to men, and that's something that we deal with together. We have a baby daughter that we love very much.

If not for my religious beliefs, I would probably be in a relationship with a man and I would probably want to have the option of marrying him. So I understand that people who don't share my beliefs have no reason to do or think otherwise than they do. I certainly don't expect them to.

This causes a bit of a moral dilemma with me. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, as well as people's freedom to think and act according to their beliefs. I also detest bigotry and inequality. My instinct, then, is to say that gay marriage should be perfectly legal.

However, my problem is this: law is basically a representation of what the people of a land consider to be right and wrong. People of course have different opinions of what is right and wrong, so this is where democracy comes in. Stealing and murder are made illegal because the general consensus of the people is that these things are wrong. I feel that my moral obligation, then, is to stand up for what I believe to be right--in this case, marriage between a man and a woman. If the general American consensus is that gay marriage is right, then so be it. But if the majority of the population, for whatever reason, believes that gay marriage is wrong, then the laws should reflect that.

Is this just another case of the majority repressing the minority? I don't know. It's a complicated issue, at least for me.

At any rate, I'm a registered democrat and I voted in the primaries today for Kucinich because I agree with him on _most_ issues. It will be interesting to see what he or Kerry or Bush or whoever does about the gay marriage thing.

As a side note, I feel like I should clarify that neither Utah state law nor the Mormon church condone polygamy (as one poster has implied).

Fascinating comments, Ben -- that's definitely a perspective I don't think has been aired here yet. Thanks for them.

The one thing I'd take issue with, though, is your claim that

law is basically a representation of what the people of a land consider to be right and wrong.

I'm not really sure I agree with that. Is speeding "wrong" in a moral sense, for instance?

I think laws are typically a civilization's way of making sure it can run smoothly and remain stable. On good days, that coincides with right and wrong -- but other times, I don't think it does. Think about how many times the phrase "X shouldn't try to legislate morality" comes up.

On the other hand, on the moral side, I also disagree with your "if a majority of the population believes gay marriage is wrong, the laws should reflect that." As others have already mentioned, if it's simply a matter of letting the majority have control, then I could order the summary execution of all blue-eyed males named Fred if I could get 50.01% of the country to go along with it. I don't think "it's what the majority wants" is necessarily what's good for the country or for its citizens.

TWL

I'd love to hear from the married people who believe allowing gay marriage will reuin the institution of marriage. "Well, two guys down the street got married, so kids, we're splitting up. We can't function as parents anymore, and the sexual attraction is now gone. They ruined it for us."

Also, doesn't the "children need a male parent and a female parent" argument remind anyone of Dan Quayle lashing out at Murphy Brown glorifying single parenthood? I hope all the single parents let their voices and experiences be heard.

The best parents are good people -- regardless of their gender, partner, or even number.

It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM but by god himself because George Bush is a Republican and he is following the polls in the country, (which he has rarely done to the extent of Clinton who polled people on where he should go on vacation and what he should wear) and his beliefs, it is a problem, it is the harshest thing in the world to do to these people, and he has no business doing this. And most of all, as was posted above, it's "a right wing conspiracy".

The hypocrisy is astounding.<<

Don't be so sure. I'm a Clinton fan, but I was extremely disappointed in him for signing that lame "act."

And I DID speak up -- had a letter about it published in my local paper, too.

I disagree with John Kerry's view on this issue too, as PAD stated he did too (this is liberal PAD, yet he is disagreeing with Kerry? There's goes your theory!).

That brush you're trying to use to paint all those who disagree with you isn't big enough.

-- Nat

But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God.

I think the point is, Lee, that gays who wish to marry were raised to believe the exact same thing.

If two of the same sex want to date and actually fall in love, fine. There are plently of couples, regardless of the actual combination, that are just living together. But if those same two same sex people want an actual marriage, I'm sorry folks, but I just cannot support that idea.

Okay, but you apparently do support the idea of people in love just living together. This is called "living in sin." It is considered by many to be inappropriate behavior that flies in the face of what God wants insofar as men and women are concerned. Nor is divorce acceptable, but I'm not sure you're ready to argue that divorce be made illegal. So the fact is that you are not bound by what is accepted in God's eyes, but instead what's accepted in *your* eyes. Saying that you feel obliged to support only man/woman marriage because that's the belief in which you were inculcated--when you're perfectly willing to set aside or ignore other aspects of what God expects for marriage--seems somewhat convenient. As if God is simply an excuse because you don't want to say that you, personally, think a guy marrying another guy is kinda icky.

But if it makes you feel any better, I have to say, I love this quote I stumbled over on the AOL newsfeed:

''There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage,'' said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

I mean, you have to love that. Crime. Drug use. Unemployment. War. Lack of medical coverage. The slow crumbling of Social Security. Starvation. Poverty. None of these hold a candle to making sure that two people of the same sex can't marry.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts.

PAD

Thanks for your response, Tim. You make some good points.

No, I don't believe that speeding is a moral issue, but the laws regarding speeding are based on some kind of value system which favors driving cautiously in order to not kill oneself or others over the alternative. I'm not sure that I could make this same kind of connection with every law, so there probably is a flaw in my generalization of what laws are. Perhaps I meant to say "what I think laws should be."

Is it possible that the majority will agree on something which is ultimately not for the good of the country? Certainly. By acknowledging that the majority may very well decide that gay marriage is right when I personally believe it is wrong, I recognize that the popular vote will not always agree with _my_ perception of right or wrong. However, I don't trust myself or any other individual to decide what is right and wrong for an entire nation. This is why I believe in democracy, trusting that the majority of people are intelligent, moral individuals who vote conscientiously for what they believe is right. If 50.1% of the population decides to eradicate all blue-eye blond-haired individuals named Ben, then that is the price I have to pay for living in a democracy. I certainly prefer that to putting my fate in the hands of a single person or even an elite group of individuals. (This argument falls apart, of course, when I realize that we don't really live in a democracy, but rather a republic. Oh well.)

Up here in Ontario (Canada) we've allowed gay marriages for almost a year now.

My wife and I were pleased to attend the wedding of a friend of mine, and didn't feel that it weakened OUR vows. In fact, it made us feel better that in uncertain times, people are still willing to publically declare their love for one another and form a bond.

By taking a negative side, your President is continuing his War of Terrorism on the minds of American people. First, you must watch out for the madmen abroad who have weapons of mass destruction; then you may feel safe with Saddam in custody, but oh no, let's go to orange alert because your neighbour could be making a pipe bomb; now you must be careful that the deviants will ruin the moral fibre of your country.

Well, they never did find those WOMD, terrorist alerts are part of a reelection ploy to make you feel that only one man will keep you safe and concerns about moral fibre are just a smokescreen to make Bush look like he is involved in National concerns; hiding the fact that he has driven your deficit, health care and education into the ground.

I should also point out that since same-sex marriages have been allowed in Ontario, that our moral fibre seems intact. (An irrelevent side note: our economy, health care and education services continue to improve)

For every one of you who is sickened by this new shell game presented by Bush, I hope that you go out, find ten friends and Vote this dark period of history away... even if it ends up being Kerry.

My two cents...

MRG

As a gay female myself I think it's being a hypocrit but, I can understand both sides of the coin.

It's a no win situation but it still doesnt make it legal what they are doing in San Fran.

Cause come income tax time I bet my bottom dollar they won't get any of the tax breaks.

Kerry is a flip flopper anyway.

As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit "their" definition.

I don't consider a multiple marriage a crime. But you will agree that there is already equality for heterosexuals and homosexuals as far as multiple marriages go - it's not legal for anyone. I don't necessarily think it's hippocritical to try for exactly the same rights as other people when there is inequality.

Personally, I think marriage between consenting adults (as many as you want, as long as they all consent...) shouldn't be a crime.

Usually polygamy isn't prosecuted. People have better things to spend their time on than poking their noses into the business of what other consenting adults do.

In Tom Green's case, he impregnated a 13 year old girl (who became his "wife".)

Not a case of consenting adults.

Personally, when all is said and done, I want government out of marriage completely. I want the only government support program to be civil unions, and let marriage be a function of churches. The courts can sort out the divorce issues.

Well, that's what legalizing same-sex marriages would do... let religious marriage be a function of the churches, which is the only proper place for it. A government-recognized marriage is a civil union, and it should be available to all citizens. The only government support system is already civil unions- you don't have to be any particular religion to be recognized as married by the government. Same-sex couples are just arguing for their right to participate in what is supposed to be a government, not religious, contract. Arguments against including homosexuals are almost always religious. Individual religions can discriminate or not as they choose, but the government is specifically forbidden in the Constitution.

But you're right. The government should only be in the business of offering civil unions, whether to heterosexual or same-sex couples, and shouldn't choose sides between the religions that allow same-sex marriages and the ones that don't.

For those individuals who continually bring up the "majority of people don't like it" argument against same-sex marriages.

One doesn't need to hark back that far to some of the other invidious discrimination that was part of our country, because "the majority" approved of it.

Inter-racial marriage. Before Loving vs Virginia struck down anti-miscgenation laws, polls that were taken showed that 90% of the country was against it. Should we have let "the majority" keep those laws on the books, and start jailing those couples?

Women being given the right to vote. "The majority" didn't want that to happen - should they go back to having no voice at the ballot box?

Blacks not having rights - only being considered 3/5ths of a person. "The majority" thought that keeping them as slaves was just fine and dandy and they even used their "holy book" to back that one up - shall we get out the shackles and chains again?

As for the "activist judge" garbage.

One will note that there have been multiple court cases (Hawaii, Massachusetts, and others) that have shown time and time and time again that there are NO valid secular reasons for denying the equality of gays and lesbians.

The "children" argument goes out the window immediately, unless marriage law is going to REQUIRE a couple to (a) procreate, (b) even have the parts to procreate since a man who has lost his member can still get married to a woman without a uterus with no legal difficulty, or (c), even require them to have conjugal relations - and to immediately dissolve the marriage if they don't.

Since they let prisoners on death row get married, I can't see that happening any time in the future.

As for "it will be a drain on resources" - as if there is only a finite amount of individuals who are allowed to get hitched. Right, pull the other one.

No, the only arguments come down to "I think it's icky", or "My chosen personal religion doesn't like it".

As for the "tradition" argument, see above the examples I gave for those wonderful "traditions" that were thankfully abolished.

The anti-equality crowd needs to realize that this country is NOT a theocracy, and that equality is not predicated on what they think their "holy book" likes or dislikes.

Toby: Propagating the human race...don't we already have an overpopulation problem? Aren't we rapidly depleting natural resources, let alone running out of spaces to house people?

Luigi Novi: According to John Stossel’s book Gimme a Break, and his 20/20 special, Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity, you could fit the current world population in Texas, and still have the population density of New York City. As for resources, Stossel has long argued that countries with lack of resources are due to overregulation, corrupt politicians and dictators, and lack of ingenuity. One example Stossel has used is Hong Kong, which has no natural resources, but which has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Tim Lynch: I find it 100% bugf*ck impossible to believe that those items somehow present less of a threat to marriage than letting my colleague and his partner of 20 years formalize their relationship with a wedding.

Luigi Novi: (blushes at Tim’s language.) :-)

As others have already mentioned, if it's simply a matter of letting the majority have control, then I could order the summary execution of all blue-eyed males named Fred if I could get 50.01% of the country to go along with it. I don't think "it's what the majority wants" is necessarily what's good for the country or for its citizens.

In WWII, the vast majority of Americans WANTED Japanese Americans put in concentration camps...and it wasn't even close. The argument may sound silly, but, dammit, it was something that actually happened...and can happen again if we don't stop to think about it.

Sorry, but such radical moves by the likes of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people is something I cannot condone.

Thank you, Peter David, for eloquently saying what I've been feeling for a long time.

If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don't have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don't like it, don't use it, but don't expect everything to change because it works out for you.

So it was wrong to abolish slavery? It was wrong to let women vote? Those things were fine from the beginning of time but it took someone altering something that existed before they did to do so.

Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans.

Wrong. Sex and birth is based on Sperm + Egg = New humans. Marriage doesn't even enter the equation. There is nothing that prevents humans from having sex and children without the benefit of marriage.

"Let people that are non religious or don't fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official."

How ... romantic. Sounds like a couple of CEOs in a lawyer's office to formalize a corporate merger.

"one group is being excluded from enjoying the rights and privledges of the whole"

One problem here is that no one seems to agree on just why those specific "rights and privileges" exist. ie why marriage exists and what is its purpose. Some see it as providing a supposedly stable environment whithin which a 'traditional' nuclear family may flourish. Others see it more as a financial arrangement. The difference is crucial to the argument.

"The irony here is that Rebecca was scamming Woody. She eventually convinced him to accept a title instead of a raise."

There was a lot of that in the real world. It started around the late 60s or early 70s, if I recall correctly. Places didn't want to give people raises and thus gave them high-sounding titles instead. This is why 'janitors' became 'custodial engineers' (to the immense disgust of REAL engineers) for example.

"Except that, biologically speaking, a sperm and egg can create new life and be raised happy and healthy regardless of marriage."

Biologically, maybe, but realistically? Not really. Else, how do you explain the fact that a disporportionate number of people in prisons come from households with broken marriages or single parents?

"I'm fine with incompatible people getting divorced."

Wouldn't it be better for incompatible people not to get married in the first place?

"Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit "their" definition."

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "They want marriage to INCLUDE 'their' definition." They aren't saying the other definitions should be scrapped, just expanded.

One might be justified in suggesting the use of the word "gay" be scrapped, however. Historically accurate it may be from a linguistic viewpoint, but one wonders how realistically accurate it can be given the sadness, fear and, yes, outright hatred which seems to unfortunately surround the whole phenomenon?

Still, an ex Canadian Prime Minister (and our last real statesman) the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it best when he gave us these words: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

Actually, polygamy = multiple partner marriage.

As monogamy is two-person marriage. Marriage of one person to one person.

Bigamy is one person married to two people. Etc.

Polygyny is one man and multiple women, polyandry is one woman and multiple men.

Apologies to those who didn't need or want a linguistics lesson, but...

The Starwolf wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for incompatible people not to get married in the first place?

Absolutely! And if they don't, should they be stuck with their choice? We don't test people for 'lifelong compatibility' before letting them get married... any man and woman off the street can get married if they so choose in the eyes of the law.

How do we *prevent* pairs of male and female people who are incompatible from getting married?

\\

Posted by Jerry

This is why the age of consent is 18 in the US, and is 16 in the UK. \\

Actually, the age of consent varies from state to state. In some states, it is as low as 14 iirc.

Of course, "age is just a number" - people mature at different rates, etc etc.

\\

Posted by Lee Houston, Junior

But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God. \\

And yet, marriage existed before your religion, and not all of the rest of us in this big, wide world are getting married under the eyes of anybody's god.

\\ Posted by Mike Pawuk

I think it's sad that two people

Besides, if a church decides that only a man & woman can marry (heck, in Utah a Mormon man can marry more than one woman), \\

You know, iirc, the Mormon church banned polygamy more than 100 years ago.

People really need to stop using that argument, because it just isn't true.

contrapositive said:

But you're right. The government should only be in the business of offering civil unions, whether to heterosexual or same-sex couples, and shouldn't choose sides between the religions that allow same-sex marriages and the ones that don't.

This makes a lot of sense. Why don't we just change the legal term from "marriage" to "civil union" and put "marriage" back in the religious sphere, without any kind of legal rights or privileges associcated with it? I'm perfectly happy having a legal "civil union" with my wife and being married by our church. I also have no objection to gay couples having the same legal rights and privileges I do. I'm not however, comfortable with the civil government defining what "marriage" is when this is a term that has religious meaning for me. Let the government be in control of civil liberties, granting them to all regardless of religious faith or sexual orientation, and let individual churches determine what "marriage" is and who can participate in it. This seems to be the only way to separate church and state in this matter.

\\ Posted by Ben

So, despite the fact that I am attracted to men, I have chosen to marry a woman whom I love very much and with whom I have a very satisfying relationship. \\

Ben, you might not want to hear this, but you are a horror story waiting to happen.

I hope it doens't come to that, but I have seen first hand what this kind of relationship can do to a family, to generations of a family, and it isn't pretty.

Marrying a woman just because you think it's the right thing to do, when everything else about you says it's wrong, is not the way to go about living, imo.

Ben

- you don't have a problem with calling your marriage a civil union in legal terms, and a marriage in religious terms...

... but I have a problem calling my relationship not a marriage simply because I'm not religious. My wife and I were married in a church, but by a civil officiant. She's Christian (generic, but former Christian Scientist), I'm not. I'm apathetic. An "apathiest" if you will.

We're married. I won't give that definition up to only religious folks.

I appreciate that you believe marriage to have religious connotations. That's fine with me. Marriage has social and cultural connotations for me, and I'm not willing to give that up.

You know, iirc, the Mormon church banned polygamy more than 100 years ago.

People really need to stop using that argument, because it just isn't true.

Thank you. I'm glad someone out there is able to distinguish between the 21st century and the 19th.

God; if they ever come out against men & sheep.....I'm screwed....

Marriage has social and cultural connotations for me, and I'm not willing to give that up.

So don't you have the authority to call your civil union a "marriage" by virture of your personal definition, just as much as my church can call my civil union a "marriage" by virtue of my personal definition? I don't understand why the government needs to dictate what is and isn't "marriage." I'd rather they just not be involved.

Why don't we just change the legal term from "marriage" to "civil union" and put "marriage" back in the religious sphere

You know, terms change over time, but as has been said repeatedly on this thread, marriage existed before religion made it "their own".

Maybe we should call religious marriages civil unions instead.

Well, part of your argument was "let the Church decide what's a marriage and what isn't."

I'm responding to that part.

...

Of course, I can call my relationship marriage, or pair-bonding, or flippity-floppity-floop (er, wait, that's my house... /south park) if I want.

But no one will know what the hell I'm talking about if I say I got flippity-floppity-floopped last week.

.... at the very least, a whole heck of a lot of rewriting will have to take place to subsitute "civil union" for "marriage" in laws, insurance documents, etc etc etc.

That's a lot of work. I wouldn't want to have to do it.

As far as I'm concerned, let gays get married.

We have a perfectly reasonable word, "marriage", for pair-bonding. I don't see a need to change it.

Unlike Maggie Gallagher or Rebecca Hagelin over at townhall.com, I don't think gays or lesbians getting married will destroy our society.

Posted by Craig J. Ries:

Marrying a woman just because you think it's the right thing to do, when everything else about you says it's wrong, is not the way to go about living, imo.

Craig, I appreciate your concern, and I understand where you're coming from, but I obviously disagree. My wife and I got married knowing (as much as anyone can) what we were getting into. I married her because I love her and I want to spend eternity with her. Every part of me, except for my sexual drive which is directed toward men, told me that this was the right thing to do, that it was what I wanted to do. When different parts of you want different things, you have to make a choice. I've simply chosen not to allow my libido to make this decision for me.

You're, of course, welcome to your opinion. Only time will tell if thirty years from now I am as happy married to my wife as I am now.

James posted:

Well, part of your argument was "let the Church decide what's a marriage and what isn't."

I'm responding to that part.

Fair enough. I was being unclear and perhaps somewhat religiously ethnocentric. Sorry.

That's a lot of work. I wouldn't want to have to do it.

A good point. I wouldn't want to either. I still hold to my ideal, though.

As far as everyone's argument that marriage existed before relgion, that entirely depends on your view of history. If you believe, as I do, that religion existed before the world was created and that marriage was a practice instituted by God, then no, marriage does not predate religion. Does this opinion hold up in a court of law or even a logical argument? No, but it has no less validity than the belief that marriage predates religion. We are, after all, talking not only about history but quite ancient prehistory.

Craig, I appreciate your concern, and I understand where you're coming from, but I obviously disagree.

Noted.

Everybody has a line with these issues, and having experienced this myself, this is kind of where I find myself drawing it, in terms of relationships, children, and being what you are compared to (in some cases) trying to be what you're not.

Like I said, Ben, I hope it works out for you. I'd hate to hear of others going through what one side of my family has gone through.

A situation where some of us have our eyes opened and others don't.

"How do we *prevent* pairs of male and female people who are incompatible from getting married?"

Getting a driver's license requires study and testing. Why should a marriage license be any different. Might help winnow out some cases which are disasters waiting to happen. Heck, I know of two cases where, had they gone to a full ceremony with the bit about "if anyone knows any reason why this couple should not be united...", there probably would have subsequently been two fewer messy divorces as their friends would have stood up and listed some rather persuasive arguments against.

Haven't read all of this thread, but I'll put in my two cents.

Personally, I think a law should be passed that says all 40 years olds are teenagers.

Sounds silly, yes? So is "gay" marriage. By definition, marriage is one husband, one wife, bound in matrimony. That's what it is.

Civil Union, fine (but not for just gay people, but for anyone dedicated to a single household).

I do believe that real push behind this is legitimization. If you want to pick your nose and eat it, knock yourself out. But don't petition to make snot a food group because it'snot. I'll tolerate gays, I won't descriminate against them. I have several friends who are gay (and others who pick their nose and eat it). I prefer they not "practice" in front of me (and it won't kill me if they do, but it would make me uncomfortable in either case).

As soon as I see the gay community come out in support of Tom Green and other polygamists, then I will support them. Until then, the gay community and activists at large are hippocryts. They want marriage to fit "their" definition.

First, I didn't know Tom Green was a polygamist. Second, on what basis do you automatically assume the gay community (which, by the way, doesn't speak with one voice anymore than the heterosexual community does) *doesn't* support polygamy? And third, since wanting equal rights under marriage of two people isn't remotely the same as polygamy, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy.

Otherwise, I totally get what you're saying.

PAD

If 50.1% of the population decides to eradicate all blue-eye blond-haired individuals named Ben, then that is the price I have to pay for living in a democracy. I certainly prefer that to putting my fate in the hands of a single person or even an elite group of individuals.

And yet, 50.1% of the population wanted Al Gore for president, but an elite group of individuals decided otherwise.

This country's a hoot, isn't it.

PAD

Sorry, but such radical moves by the likes of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people is something I cannot condone.

People are being married against their will? Oh my GOD! Someone should do something!

PAD

Some random thoughts on the subject:

Yes, Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act." So what? Not everyone who is against this law worships at the altar of Billary. He was wrong then and Bush is wrong now.

The definition of an "activist judge" is any judge that issues a ruling that you don't agree with. It isn't illegal for a judge to issue an interpretation on how to apply a statute or whether it violates the state or federal constitution. That's their job.

I still don't buy the "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. I have one wife and I love her dearly, but one is plenty. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to suddenly inspire me to look for a second wife, despite that fact that polygamy is endorsed by the same Bible people quote to condem homosexuality.

As for bestiality, if you can show me a sheep capable of signing a marriage certificate, I'll worry about legalizing it.

The idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage is ludicrous. Can anyone show me data or a poll proving that straight couples would be less likely to get married or more likely get divorced because of gay marriages?

The idea of marrying for love is a new idea in our society. Only a few hundred years ago, virtually all marriages were arranged, often with the bride and grown not even meeting until the day of their wedding. This is still the practice in some parts of the world today. Today everyone, with the exception of idiots who go on reality TV shows, expects to marry for love. The concept of marriage in our society has changed over the years and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.

PAD posted: First, I didn't know Tom Green was a polygamist.

Just for clarification, PAD, they aren't referring to the comedian/actor Tom Green, but another man of the same name who was convicted of polygamy (among other charges) in Utah after being prominently featured on many news magazines and talk shows.

Robin and I got married at City Hall. The "G word" was never mentioned. For a lot of us, as we've seen in this thread, God has nothing to do with marriage; marriage is a legal joining and a public declaration of love. We consider love (and marriage) to be "sacred" in a spiritual sense rather than a religious one. And I think that's at the key of what seems to be confusing or upsetting a lot of people.

"It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM..."

Thoroughly untrue, Balder, and quite easily disproven by the public record, as the Internet was up in force during Clinton's presidency. There was a TON of protest over the DOMA and "don't ask don't tell." Please don't rewrite history.

"I'm stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society."

I think we can all agree objectively that children need loving parents. Beyond that, everything else you claim is subjective.

"...the San Francisco mayor imposing gay marriage without the consent of the people..."

You can't be serious. If there's any place where people would consent to gay marriage, it's San Francisco. :)

"God; if they ever come out against men & sheep.....I'm screwed...."

LOL - brilliant, Dave, thank you!

PAD wrote:

**And yet, 50.1% of the population wanted Al Gore for president, but an elite group of individuals decided otherwise.

This country's a hoot, isn't it.**

I agree one hundred percent. That's why the electoral college is an outdated and ridiculous concept.

First, PAD and KRAD, thank you for addressing most of what I would have said.

As for why no one is pushing for an amendment granting the right to marry to same-sex couples, that shouldn't be necessary. It should fall under the already ratified and held up in court right to equal protection under the law. Protection from what, you ask? From not being able to be with your loved one or make decisions on their behalf in time of crisis. From not being considered a "real" couple because you haven't made the legal commitment. OK, the tax thing isn't a huge help for most couples, but the legal rights and protections are important.

If your religion doesn't accept same-sex marriages, then don't have them marry in your church. There are already quite a few faiths that won't acknowledge a marriage unless it takes place on their terms according to their mandates and traditions. That's the right of a religion. But there are also churches that very much want to be able to marry their homosexual couples who are so inclined. But all this is irrelevant, because the right to marry is a legal issue, and should be provided as a matter of legal equality.

People are people. Laws should treat them as such, and allow them the same liberties, rights, and responsibilities.

(Of course, a lot of people who call themselves "Christians" might be astonished by Matthew 6: 5-8...)

Why would what Jesus says about prayer be shocking???

There is no crime to violent, no atrocity too foul for anyone to commit that will take away your right to marriage, except