Same Sex Marriages: What's the Big Deal?

First and foremost, church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That's it.

It seems that Obama felt the need to embrace Christianity more to fit in. During his presidential campaign he never really sided for or against same-sex marriages. I know the cards were stacked against him with his name and ethnicity but any candidate still has to fit a schoolboy criteria in order to be considered a legitimate candidate. I am at least glad being black is finally off the list as a negative characteristic!

If Britney Spears can party it up in Vegas with one of her boys and go get married on a whim and annul her marriage the next day, why can't a loving same sex couple tie the knot? How could our society grant more rights to a heterosexual one night stand wedding in Vegas than a gay couple that has been together for 3, 5, 10 years of true love? The divorce rate in America is currently 50%. I am willing to bet that same sex marriages have a higher success rate than heterosexual marriages.

Maybe I am a man ahead of my time. However, looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?

Comments

[Isis N]

"First and foremost, church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That's it."

EXACTLY! Very succinctly put!

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

Brendon, you rock. Wonderful post from anyone, magnificent from an NFL linebacker!

[3in1]

The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unique social and legal status of marriage.

In Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love," the 47-bishop committee said.

[meko]

Unitarians, members of the United Church of Christ, and Reformed Jews have all performed marriages for gay couples. Who is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to say that their rites are invalid under U.S. law?

No faith is supposed to have precedence over any other in the U.S. There is no officially government sanctioned set of religious beliefs. Let's keep it that way.

[Willow712]

Well, in the Fantasyland that the Catholic Bishops live, it probably is very logical to say , ".marriage is ..........­..intimate partnership of life and love." I' m a very lax Catholic, but how many NonCatholics know the percentage of people unable to receive Communion, and the number of people who lie about it, due to divorce? Catholic Churches do not have to allow gays to marry in their Churches. And we are not a country that follows the teachings of the Vatican, that's for sure.

We are a country that works to give equal rights and equal protection by law. If Segregation were voted on by the population, we'd still have two water fountains and four bathrooms in certain parts of our country. It took the Supreme Court and the National Guard to integrate certain places in the South. And there are still lots of people in the South that are angry about that, I bet.

[citizensrus]

This from men who have never been married. Time to get real.

[rextrek]

I've been saying the same thing....total hetero strangers can marry and GET over 1400 federal RIGHTS,when LGBT Americans (Tax Paying) citizens who've been together 5,10-15yrs or more...can't? It's a disgrace..an appalling!! Another thing, when LGBT people HAVE children THEY ARE PLANNED FOR...they are NOT accidents from 1 nite of drinking. Im sickened as an American. Liberty and Justice for All my ass....they are EMPTY WORDS for LGBT Americans!

[LiberalAndGDProud]

Two reasons why we should let homosexuals get married.

First, I don't think that my marriage needs to be protected from monogamous homosexuals.

Second, why should I have to be stuck with a nagging spouse which will take half of everything I got (if I'm lucky) if I get a divorce, while homosexsuals can simply split apart if they feel like it. They should suffer just like me.

[Kim Stagliano - Huffpost Blogger]

Before banning gay marriage, if the goal is to protect marriage, the country should outlaw divorce, or at least go back to fault divorce. And then, since the bible says (I think... I'm a Catholic, what can I say) that marriage is for making babies, we should prevent any post-menopausal woman from marrying and dissove the marriage of all couples who do not produce or adopt a child within five years of marriage. Sorry old folks, no "love is better the second time around" for you. No babies? No marriage.

If my brother and his wonderful partner of 17 years got married tomorrow it wouldn't make my 17 year marriage any better or worse. Any more or less sacred. Watching people marry/divorce/marry divorce (Are you listening Mr. Limbaugh?) does lessen the sanctity of marriage though. And buying an annulment is right up there too.

I don't think every Church should have to perform gay marriages. If a Christian Church or Conservative synagogue wants to opt out, that's their right. If they want to rail against gay marriage, that's fine too. (As you can see, I carry a divided tray with me to Church, cafeteria style.)

A thinking, writing athlete? Yum!

[3in1]

The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unique social and legal status of marriage.

In Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love," the 47-bishop committee said in a statement released Sept. 10.

[meko]

Why should Catholics get to determine whether Unitarian marriages are valid?

[meko]

Since when did the Administrative Council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops get to determine the law of the land? Since when did they get to decide who OTHER churches can marry?

Gays have been getting married in Unitarian churches for years. Why does one church get to determine the validity of another church's beliefs?

[johnr49]

Why should Catholic Bishops determine whether ANYONE'S marriages are valid? The legality of marriage in this country is determined by the laws of each State, NOT any religious body, which is why a marriage performed by a judge has the same legal validity as one performed by a priest.

[JohnBisceglia]

I don't feel very "free", not when the LACK of EQUAL PROTECTION leads to homelessness. I've personally gone from being more like "Mr. Rogers" to being more like "Tim McVeigh".

Brendon, WE NEED YOUR VOICE! And others. Heterosexuals seem to think that if they do not HEAR about any suffering from "the gays" that there is none. SILENCE = DEATH. If you are indeed a man ahead of your time, help us push FASTER into the future.

I want to be "there"....not "here".

[smithshaw08]

Keep believing John. More & more heterosexuals are standing up for us & standing beside us to fight for equality. Cyndi Lauper is launching a large fundraiser. The momentum is growing & the backlash from prop 8 enlightened quite a few people in the dark. When someone like NOM runs an ad of lies, the response was very fast, all their claims have been debunked before.
Brendon I commend you for speaking up.

[Foreground]

I am pro-gay marriage, but I don't know if I'd say that they'd out-perform straight marriages in terms of not getting divorces. Perhaps for a few years on the grounds that them having just got the right to marriage so it won't seem so cheap, and having a somewhat smaller percent of the population to cheat with than straight couples, but they are only humans.

[StevenKeirstead]

In five the five years since the Goodridge decision, Massachusetts had nearly 11,000 same sex marriages performed, with only a few divorces. Typically most marriages that are going to fail do so in the first five years. Unfortunately the lead plaintiffs in the Goodridge case were in one of the few same sex marriages to fail here.

[SJBrown]

Massachuesetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country independent of same sex marriages. There is nothing that suggests the rates for same sex marriages are any different.

[queotic]

Good article. One correction though:

"blacks being counted as two thirds of a human,"

Blacks were considered to be 3/5ths of a human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

[johnr49]

2/3 = 0.67
3/5 = 0.6

Splitting hairs?

[jwinger 999]

I agree with the first paragraph of the article. Why can the religious right, can come in and in no uncertain terms declare that they support legislation against same sex marriage because marriage is a "sacred institution", and no one calls them on it? Doesn't "sacred" imply some sort of sanctioning by a deity? It seems to me that their argument invalidates all marriage, both hetero- and homosexual, as unconstitutional, since it is a religious construct.

If I were put in charge of ending the gay marriage debate once and for all, I would remove marriage as legal institution, with grandfather clauses of course, and make any new unions, gay or straight, Civil Unions. Anyone married before the law takes affect still maintains all of their legal status, but all of the benefits and rights become attached to the secular civil union. Then, anyone wanting a "marriage" in the traditional sense, finds a church or place of worship that is accepting of them and they have their ceremony.

Really the only change here, is that instead of calling it a "marriage license" it becomes a civil union. By changing two simple words, I believe that a large portion of the population that is not anti-gay would be fully willing to support it. From a religious right perspective, the sanctity of marriage is protected since it is now completely out of the government's hands, and from a equal rights perspective it provides everyone with the same opportunity.

Just a thought.

[BusGreg]

The US is NOT a christian nation! We are a free Nation where religion is tolerated, not a religious Nation where freedom is tolerated!
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion"
-- George Washington & John Adams,
in a diplomatic message to Malta.


"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religion in it."
-- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The Bible is not my book,
and Christianity is not my religion.
I could never give assent to the long,
complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Those are quotes of our founding fathers. For religious zealots to imply otherwise is ignorant. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it is a no brainer. It should be legal anywhere. While some people chose the gay life style for one reason or another, science has proven that more often than not "Gay" is in the genetic makeup and a person, male or female, has no influence over this. To deny them the full legal rights afforded heterosexual couples is discrimination, not unlike the prohibitionn of interracial marriage that wa practiced a few decades ago.

[typhanie]

Well said and Thank You for your post

[queotic]

Thanks for the great quotes.

[Zanti]

Is America a Christian nation?

[Willow712]

America is a Godly nation. "One Nation under God, conceived in libery and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...." We are a nondenominational nation. "In God We Trust", but Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc. are all free to worship in their own way, as long as it hurts no one else and it does not interfere with others' freedom to live in their own way.

That's why this marriage equality problem bothers me so much. I am a straight 56 year old Grandma in small town Iowa. And even my neighbors and myself know that the Religious right is forcing their viewpoint on another group.

[2morrowKnight]

"It seems that Obama felt the need to embrace Christianity more to fit in"

Obama was already "embracing" Christianity before he announced his run for president. He's been a born again Christian for a long time. You phrased that line incorrectly. Here's a better way to say it: "Because of the lies and half-truths about his religious affiliation circulating in e-mails and viral videos, Obama emphasized his Christianity a lot more to defeat the smears and misinformation."

He didn't all of the sudden "embrace Christianity" more. He simply "emphasized his Christianity" more. Your line made it seem that he all of the sudden discovered and gravitated toward Christianity to fit in. The people saying he was a muslim extremist were pimping a deep-seated xenophobia that still exist in the country, because the purveyors of that lie knew that most of America (at this moment in time) will not vote for a person of the muslim faith. Period. So, to be clear, Obama merely
"emphasized" more what he was already "embracing".

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/2morrowknight

[johnr49]

True, but I think the point Brandon was trying to make was that, had Barack been an atheist or an agnostic, it is unlikely that he would have been elected.

[PlaceboStudman]

Lovely article. Unfortunately, the people who need to hear this most will see your comments about this not being a Christian nation and stop reading. Those who talk about religious tolerance and acceptance are really just trying to say "tolerate and accept MY version of religion and/or God". They have no intention of allowing anyone the possibility to believe in their own version of God, or in fact no God at all. We have a LONG way to to, and the hypocricy of those who use religion to object to marriage equality are not going to go away or sit down and shut up, so we may have to wait until socierty clings onto our logic and rational thought before the religious arguments against marriage equality will cease. and there are NO other logical, rational arguments against marriage equality other than religion

[johnr49]

So true. Here's an example of the Christian Right attempting to force their beliefs on others:

The word "atheist" comes from the Greek "a-theos", which literally translates to "no god" or "without a god". A reasonable, objective, non-judgemental definition would be "someone who does not believe in a god or gods (Note the small "g").

Unfortunately, many American dictionaries now define the word as "one who denies the existence of God" (capital "G")

The clear implications of this definition are:
1. there is a god
2. that god is the god I believe in, i.e. MY God
3. If you don't believe in MY God, you're an ignorant heathen!