Hurrah for Gay Marriage

I've never understood the objection to gay marriage. We humans are pair-bonding creatures and we seem to feel safest when coupled. It's not true for everyone, of course, but most of us eventually want a partner to merge our books and lives with. Marriage provides certain extremely useful perks: a partner to be with you when you are ill, someone to share your poverty or wealth with, someone to share your celebrations and devastations, someone to raise children with. You'd think the right wing would be pleased that gay people share the same needs as other Americans.

In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies. Or they had to go without a next-of-kin to depend on in hospital. All sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo was required because marriage was forbidden. And why? Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve -- as the anti-gay faction likes to say.

I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling. Some couples are faithful and some not. And they seem to practice this without the territoriality and hypocrisy of mixed-sex couples. Actually, they should be our role models in marriage. They take it far more seriously than straight people -- perhaps because it was forbidden for so long.

So hurrah for California and Massachusetts. Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids.

But the truth is the anti-gays don't think rationally. They need their wedge issues to distract the populace from reality. Anti-gay rhetoric is a useful political smokescreen. It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that nobody gives a hoot about the poor. Whenever people get exercised about sex -- suspect the truth: they want to pick your pocket.

Comments

[Charlio]

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who have a problem with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

[MourningDude]

A chicken in every pot, a SUV in every garage, and a spouse in every bedroom.

The next thing we'll hear from the left is that ever with equal opportunity, some people are failing to attain marriage, and need government assistance to do so.

The fact is that everyone now has equal access to marriage. All the government is doing is acknowledging that there are fundamental differences between the genders, just as they do in other areas without complaint. The state is allowed to discriminate based on gender when there are rational, justifiable reasons for doing so. This is certainly the case for marriage law, so I don't have a problem with it.

[Bluesue]

This may be legal but same sex couples are still not equal. Federal law prohibits recognition of same sex couples.

Same sex couples do not have the same protections or benefits under federal law. President Clinton signed the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore, no federal law covers same sex couples including ERISA.

A company may offer benefit coverage to same sex couples in a state that has legalized marriage. However, none of the federal laws will cover these couples. For example, the value of health care coverage to a same sex spouse will be treated as taxable income and will be added to the employee's W-2. Of course, it is not taxed for a heterosexual couple.

Legalizing Marriage is only a step toward equality.

[shinybear]

True.

Barack Obama however wants to overturn DOMA and extend federal benefits to LGBT couples in states that do allow marriage or unions.

One more reason why we need Obama.

[NCMan]

Neither Clinton nor Obama support equal marriage rights for gays. Both Clinton and Obama support providing federal rights to gays who are in state sanctioned unions.

There is NO difference in the positions of Clinton or Obama on this.

Neither candidate supports federally MANDATED civil unionis in all 50 states. they each want the states to be able to continue to discriminate if they so choose.

Yes, Obama supports total repeal of DOMA and Clinton supports repeal of the portion that stops the fed govt from giving benefits to gay couples.

But, this is a difference without a distinction. The portion Clinton would not repeal is the part that says states don't have to recognize marriages from other states. And, if you think a total repeal supported by Obama would make states recognize gay marriages from others states, you need to rethink that.

[AdamX]

Legalized partner laws is a step in the right direction. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[MizLiz]

Yeah, well, I put DOMA in the same class as NAFTA. A really damaging cop-out.

[MonicaL]

QUOTE:

"....Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids."

Absolutely. Nothing could be better for kids than having society openly accept two men who are sticking their dicks in each other.

[Bibbo]

You call us the"lunatic fringe" and nobody bats an eye.We call your same sex attraction a sexual perversion and we're called well...the lunatic fringe and much worse. A double standard exists here. There's nothing "fringe" about a movement that wins majority votes every time,,,i.e. gay marriage rejected by voters. A perversion need 2 criteria: its an act divorced from its original intent and its chosen less often than the original act. The intended goal of sex is reproduction not human pleasure. Reversing these and making pleasure the end perverts natures intent. I see a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in those that ignore these facts. Other perversions are clearly seen as such.We eat for nourishment...making pleasure in food the primary end leads to malnutrition,obesity and the such.This whole gay rights discussion has never been about fairness but about the gays demanding(not asking) the majority to ignore thier religious convictions and do much .more than "tollerate" the gay lifestyle. They demand subservience and full acceptance as equals to us in matters of morals and behavior. Everybody knows this is the real discussion going behind the code words of "tollerance" and "civil rights"

[StephenDedalus82]

If you're going to use science in your argument, at least have the decency to know what the hell you're talking about.

[Petesdaddy]

"The intended goal of sex is reproduction not human pleasure." Now that's an interesting observation, Bibbo.. So what you are saying is that heterosexual people who choose not to have children should not be allowed to enjoy the intimacy of making love? Reproduction may be the reason for sex between dogs, horses, and cattle, but human beings most often do it for the pleasure that making love gives them. Dogs, horses and cattle do not make love. They breed.

[DMNY6]

I just... you see... Logic and...
Wow. You know what, nothing I can say.
Although I'd point out that an accepting society is preferable to an intolerant one. I, for one, would parade my kids down the Castro in San Fran before exposing them to ignorance such as yours.

[klmebane]

but a husband sticking his dick in his wife's ass is completely ignorable? why do we focus on what one group is assumed to do in their bedroom but completely ignore the other side. is all sex bad, or just some sex? how do you pick and choose? a hetero married couple can have sex however they want without people who have no involvement in their lives or relationships sticking their noses in their bedroom... why can't the same privacy and dignity be extended to all tax paying americans? if the federal and state governments can continue to discriminate in the law of the land, i should be able to bring a suit to prevent me from having to pay taxes that fund straight marriages and all the social programs i couldn't pass on (as a veteran, for instance) to my partner simply because we cannot be married legally here. why should i pay into social security when i can't give it to the person i love in the event of my death? i don't want my child going to foster care. she has a family that she knows and loves.

[klmebane]

either every tax paying citizen has the right to marry the person of their choosing or no one does. perhaps we could make "marriage" strictly a religious service, and allow civil unions for all americans, gay or straight, who wish to make a commitment to each other without the religious involvement, that is legally enforceable under federal and state law. any churches that wish to "marry" gay couples can do so, but none would be required to. would that be agreeable to you types, or would you find a problem with the notion of equal representation under the law?

[klmebane]

also, no parent should be letting their kids watch them have sex in the first place. since when does what a couple does in the bedroom effect the kids unless the kids actually see or hear it? that isn't a rational argument, that because the two men have sex its bad for kids. does two heterosexual people having sex damage their kids if the kids don't see it? its all the same to a 6 year old.

[rektruax]

"Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse."

They won't...

[allwrite]

A question for the readership:

If marriage is defined as a union between man and woman (as it is in my dictionary), and if same sex unions were legal and conferred all the benefits and entitlements of marriage, then does giving same sex unions a different title (say 'legal partnership' or whatever) dissipate the hate and discontent that surrounds this issue?

[DeSwiss]

First, dictionary words evolve in their meaning over time. So finding the definition you referred to for "marriage" in your dictionary, isn't really relevant to your question. Marriage used to also mean the the chattel (ownership) of a woman by a man. Several women at once, in fact.

Secondly, as to civil unions you ask: "if they were legal and conferred all the benefits and entitlements of marriage?" Which is precisely the problem. The few same-sex civil union laws that we do have in this country have already found that they do not confer the exact same benefits and entitlements and in particular, the legal grounding that marriage does.

When and "if" civil unions ever do confer all these wonderful things to same-sex partners, I seriously doubt that it would dissipate the hate and discontent, because the whole point of the anti-gay ideology (for lack of a better term), is to abolish the idea of the acceptance of homosexuality altogether.

Because they still accept the wisdom of Bronze-Age semi-desert nomads who believe it all started with an apple...

:-|

[CraigB]

If you want to protect the institution of marriage, ban divorce.

BTW, to all of the fundies posting here, Jesus said that the ONLY legit reason to get divorced in the eyes of God was for adultery.

So.......

husband beat you up every night, then beats the kids?
sorry, gotta stay married

have totally different views and priorities regarding finances?
gotta stay married

you suddenly realize that you married too young and chose the wrong person?
gotta stay married

And finally, can anyone tell me why the bible belt carries the banner of highest divorce rates, highest unwed teen pregnancy rates?

Fundamentalist Christians talk a good game, but the lives they lead tell a much different story.

[K-Dog76]

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce... you can legally get divorced but never remarry in the Catholic Church unless the marriage is annulled (which is kind of a little trial on its own to discover if you were somehow unknowingly duped into the whole thing)

Yeah Fundamentalists talk a good game, funny thing is they don't read much of the Bible either, only the parts that subscribe to their way of thinking...

The only passage I think worth repeating regularly is...
"Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as you love yourself"

I love my neighbor, straight or gay black or white, even those less than enlightened.

[midknightryder13]

I only have a couple of things to add:

Bozena, you say that 'marriage' as a word was created to describe a union between a man and a woman. That isn't strictly true -- it was created to describe a union, that is taking two people who were previously unrelated who were then made kin, but the fact that those unions were between men and women is more a product of default. Because there WERE NO OTHER KINDS of relationships, at least none that were talked about.

Further, IF the argument is that 'marriage' is a religious union, then WHERE were all the objections when the concept of legal marriage was first proposed? There should have been a tremendous outcry, "The GOVERNMENT can't MARRY people, that's a religious institution. You'll have to call yours something else." This didn't happen, so RIGHT THERE the 'definition of marriage' was changed.

Also, as a linguist, you surely know that language is always fluid and dynamic. It has to be because that's the way our societies are.

Lastly, for now -- I do wish people would STOP referring to it as 'gay marriage'. What is being sought is 'Equal access to LEGAL marriage by same gender couples." Or 'marriage equality', if you prefer. 'Gay marriage' gives the impression of an entirely new institution or concept -- not at all what is the desired goal. Though I admit, that term does make for a more easily understandable headline or graphic.

[DeSwiss]

I agree with all your points except one. Initially marriages were seldom between "unrelated" people. More often than not, they were cousins - usually 1st or 2nd. It was used mainly a means to retain wealth and prestige within the extended family.

Ironically, this still occurs much today and is an unrecognized source of the problems in Iraq where family allegiances out-weigh support for political ideologies or a sense of nationalism.

[SethBLiNK]

Yes, wedge issues distract us from the things that are important to most of us, and the fact is, but it takes two sides to form a wedge.

While you may be right to support gay marriage, saying that you never understood somebody's objection to it means you probably never tried very hard to understand it. You don't have to agree with a point of view to understand why somebody has come to have it.

And calling those opposed to gay marriage the "anti-gay lunatic fringe" doesn't really help the dialog either. Does being anti-gay-marriage make somebody anti-gay? And does it really tag them as a lunatic?

[DMHopper]

"Does being anti-gay-marriage make somebody anti-gay?"

Well, there are certainly degrees to being anti-gay. Someone who wants gay people dead is definitely more anti-gay that someone who just wants gays and lesbians to remain second class citizens.

Oh, wait... what am I saying? I forgot, we don't do nuance in this country. My bad.

[SethBLiNK]

What I was attempting to do here was not to address the issue of gay marriage (which for the record, I support) but trying to see if we can perhaps have a dialog where the potential at least exists to win people over to a reasonable point of view.

I'll address this response to all of my responders, anteaus, PlantGod72 and DM, Hopper.

In 2008, you can call Strom Thurmond and George Wallace "the lunatic fringe," but in 1950's Alabama, they were the people in power and their views reflected those of a lot of white people in their region. You could have called them lunatics then as well, but it wouldn't win many people over to your side of the argument.

And yes, DM we do do nuance in this country and there are many shades of gray between those who want gays dead and those who want to deny them the right to state-recognized matrimony. You can lump them all together if you like, and call them names, but that does is alienate people who might be on the road to enlightenment rather than encourage them to travel further down the road.

[PlantGod72]

SethBliNK, there's a difference between knowing the rhetoric and being able to list the reasons that people opposed to gay marriage give to justify their position, and ACCEPTING those reasons as valid, no matter firmly they are expressed.

[antaeus]

"Most of us"?

Who sat where on a bus in 1950s Alabama might not have been important to "most" Americans of the day. It might even have been called a wedge issue if the phrase had been around then.

And I think that Strom Thurmond and George Wallace would have been considered a "lunatic fringe" in the context of the burgeoning enlightenment of the mid-twentieth century.

The thing is, we are moving forward on the issue of same-sex marriage. It's coming. This is the moment. If "lunatic fringe" troubles you, then pick another phrase.

Hopelessly out of touch? Backward looking? 20th-century man?

[HypocrisyAlarm]

I prefer the term "unenlightened" for such types.

[amanda85]

"Does being anti-gay-marriage make somebody anti-gay?"

Yes, as much as being anti-interracial-marriage made people racist.

[UVRayburn]

Some have spent their entire lives honestly trying to understand objections to marriage equality. Everyone on both sides knows there is no valid reason to object. The reasons that the opposition offer for their objections contain no logic and are unamerican. It is sad that the right wing feels they need to continue this ruse to win elections. The saddest part is that right wing christians feel they have the authority to tell others they are not "real christians." Those who believe that ones religion is not valid if it does not conform to right wing religious dogma are religious bigots. That is why they are called bigots and haters. If you do not like being called a bigot and a hater, change your ways...God won't mind at all.

[SethBLiNK]

"Everyone on both sides knows there is no valid reason to object."

Do you really think that? Do you really think that every person who opposes gay marriage does so even though in there heart they know they are wrong.

If so, then you cannot have really tried that hard to understand their point of view, and cannot really expect that they will work very hard to understand yours.

While I don't doubt there are some who feel one thing but say another (due to economic interest, a desire not to piss off their constiuents, or just wanting to fit in) there are others who in their heart feel that its wrong and are speaking their true feelings when they object.

If you wish to win over hearts and minds (and not just complain and point fingers) you have to first acknowledge that this is a topic upon which well meaning people can disagree.

As to people who have spent their lives trying to understand objections, how about the fact that it's difficult for many to depart from things that have been ingrained in them since childhood.

And by the way, according to your definition of bigotry, would somebody who believes that one's religion is not valid if it does not conform to your religious dogma be a bigot too?

[randyjet]

Actually, it is the gay marriage folks who are the nuts and who are in the minority. All of the candidates are opposed to gay marriage, as was Kerry and Bush. I read the entire opinion of the CA Supreme Court and it is not a very good argument since it also fails to say how gay marriage benefits the state as though that is not even a question that needs to be answered. At least the MA Supreme Court acknowledged that our liberties are not just one way and that our liberties and rights entail some obligation to the state. CA seems to see no such thing.
The other interesting thing is that ALL of their arguments apply with equal force to plural marriages as well. So the next suits will be to legalize polygamy.. Given the ruling and reasoning of the court, I can see NO bar to that either. The ACLU already has a position on that in FAVOR of polygamy and will undoubtedly file a suit on that question. I would like to hear some of the gay marriage people explain why that should not be legalized between consenting adults. It has worked well for the original Mormons, as well as Muslims who had one of the most advanced civilizations with that kind of thing. At least polygamy is sanctioned in the Bible and has long been practiced in many if not most societies.

[antaeus]

It's not fair to make proponents of same-sex marriage responsible for every slippery-slope scenario, especially and ironically those that have even a longer history of controversy and censure than same-sex marriage, namely plural marriage. American society has officially condemned plural marriage for a century now. One need only turn on a TV this week in order to have that confirmed. The reasons for this are a belief that plural marriage tends toward exploitation and abuse. But as I said, that is another issue, and however much you'd like to link them a la man-on-dog Rick Santorum, they are not logically connected.

On Friday I go to Spain, a country that has same-sex marriage, and where citizens are coexisting peaceably and the sky has not fallen.

In 2008, you can recognize that you and those like you are swimming against the tide, or you can go under railing against the inevitable. Either way, it's coming.

[sdskelton03]

It is fair if they are using the courts to advance thier agenda.

The legal argument, as best I understand it, could be used unchanged to validate polyamorous relationships, beastiality et al.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about gay marriage. That said, I am very much against using the court to legalize it. That isn't what the courts are for.

If you feel strongly about it, I say "good for you." Take it to the people via referndum or to thier representitives in the state house and senate.

That is how our system of government works!

[randyjet]

The reasons for abuse and exploitation was in things OTHER than marriage laws. It was from women not having ANY rights as citizens. Monogamy did NOT keep women safe or secure. It did not make it worse. That is not the case now, so polygamy is not any threat to women.
The slippery slope is in the gay marriage ruling. If they use that as justification for it, then as the ACLU will undoubtedly note. then it makes NO sense to ban polygamy. They will of course be right if you accept those reasons as being valid. I do NOT. It is egregious legislating from the bench and has NO basis in law or fact. I do NOT agree with Scalia who says that virtually ALL such things lead to gay marriage. Maybe YOU DO agree with Scalia. My position is that it is the legislature and government who decides what and who gets contracts of marriage within certain limits as prescribed by the US Constitution. Very easy to figure out. So that means that race can play no part in it since the 14th amendment prohibits it. If that amendment mentioned gays in it, I would agree with you.

[ramal]

I have absolutely no problem with the thousand or so poor souls in this country who want to live in the 19th Century and practice polygamy. It's not bothering me and if they can support the children, fine. Just a rather strange way of practicing the teachings of Christ I would say. By the same token, the most liberal estimate would put the gay population at a stable 10% of the population, many demographers put it at around five percent or less. At even 10% of the population only about half of those gays are in commited relationships and only about half of those (less than 3% of the genreal population) would probably feel the need or call to get married. What is the problem? Somehow given the imminent perils that our society faces gay marriage would have no ill consequences what so ever. Grow up, America!

[Leper]

There is polygamy in theory and then there is polygamy in practice.

We think, that in a democratic and free society, people should be able to choose who they associate with and who they bond and create relationships with. That is the theory.

In practice, polygamy has been used to keep people from associating with whom they want because polygamy has been dictated (anti-democracy) by a church elder or leader.

That is not freedom, and I do have a problem with that.

[randyjet]

Most polygamists are NOT in religious cults. They are ordinary folks who just like being together as a family. They have similar problems as gays, only they don't get the press, nor the sympathy. I am sure that this will change with the ACLU being on their side and making it a "liberal" cause.

[Ontariocentric]

So many holes in this argument...

1.) Homosexuality is not a religion, and homosexual equality is not in the name of religious zealotry, but constitutional law. Therefore, the polygamy issue is separate from the issue of same-sex marriage.
1.a.) If you're proposing we establish plural marriage (because it "worked well" for particular religious communities in a completely different place, time, and context) then you really ought to run that by women first.
2.b.) Whatever the Bible "sanctions" (like polygamy as you say) is really not applicable under our constitutional democratic system.

2.) All the candidates oppose gay marriage because they rely on votes from the masses - which is not the same as the educated classes.

3.) Same-sex marriage benefits the State (ie-California) via: more economically secure people (married people), family stability thru legal recognition, more empowered citizens, more tolerant citizens, etc. etc.

[randyjet]

Polygamy is NOT a religion either, though most who practice it are religious in some fashion. I would say that most gays are religious as well. Some religions approve of gay marriage, though it does NOT therefore make gay marriage a religion either.
I fail to find any part of the US Constitution which refers to gays. IT DOES refer to former slaves and THEIR rights. The Warren court in Loving made marriage a right in the context of heterosexaul marriages, NOT gay ones, so therefore the use of it as justification for gay marriage is specious.
As for biblical references I have to use that since the CA court said that contemporary society somehow has been determined to sanction gay marriage. Showing past practice is needed for justification in support of polygamy.
As for the disdain you show for democracy, I think that says quite enough on your side. It is obvious that you would prefer to have only your kind of educated people be allowed to vote. That is called elitism or dictatorship which ever you prefer. I see no indication that gay marriage will stabilize gay relationships any more than hetero ones. I don't think Ellen will stay with her new love any longer than if she were not married.
I cannot wait to see all the gay couples go out and vote down plural marriages and rant about how bad such folks are and their intolerance and hatred for them.

[memoirsofagaysha]

actually, there are many things to be said in favor of polygamy (provided that it doesn't damage underaged children; i.e. provided that it be in the mold of HBO's "Big Love" for the Salt Lake City residents, not the Compound residents)

Polygamy is a sacrament before one's god (as strange to non-Mormons as the mormon god may be); but the state would have a legitimate interest -- if only for fiscal solvency -- in not having infinitely multiplying survivorship benefits to worry about. so let mormon husband choose many wives, but only one (could this be rotated amongst them, like conjugal duties?) might at any moment have the right/benefits of survivorship. if a second or third wife voluntarily submits to not having survivorship benefits, why should it be anyone else's business what their bedroom affairs are?

[Bibbo]

There is a theme in all the pro-gay marriage posts I've seen and its that the contrary view is fueled by hatred of gays. Do you really believe this or do you want to believe this to discredit your critics? You correctly link opposition to gay marriage as bible based so then it must follow that the bible teaches hatred.If the bible teaches hatred(anywhere or in any verse)then one is justified in concluding the whole book is a fraud. I've heard some say that their critics cherry pick or distort biblical teachings to prove their point but never provide a specific case in point.They just say its being done. Please (anybody) show me where and you just might have a convert. I want to be on the right side of this debate. A real dilemma exists if the bible indeed is fraudulant...where do you go to find out what life is all about? Do you figure it out all by yourself? Do you follow somebody else? Is ther anybody you trust enough(including yourself) to have the answeres? If there really is no supernatural guidance...then is there really a supernatural at all? Would a loving God really leave us so alone if he existed?

[jcwtts1]

oh and one more quick thing. your slam on the bible is why we keep losing this issue. We argue it as if the bible is somehow a bad thing. If you feel that way, fine, but arguing that the bible is somehow evil is a bad tactic. It loses over half the country on the first sentence.

J

[Zanti]

The Bible contains many wicked, evil things. And I say that as a Christian.

God gave us the ability to separate the evil from the good, even if it's evil from the "Good" Book.

Please note--I don't care for all the religion-bashing at Huff-Po, either, but this really wasn't an instance of it, imo.

[BillN]

I think all so-called Christians have way too much time on their hands when they burn so much energy on wedge issues like gay marriage, lapel pins, and their belief that they are the self-appointed guardians of morality.

I will bet my next paycheck on two things:

1. No so-called Christian on this, or any other thread, can name a single instance where a gay marriage has caused irreparable harm to our society - or any harm for that matter. And...

2. Not a single so-called Christian on this thread has posted anything in objection to the genocide in Darfur, the refusal of the Myanmar government to allow foreign assistance to their people after the typhoon tragedy, nor have they voiced any objection to any other world event that has cost thousands of lives needlessly... including Katrina.

If Jesus Christ were around today, do you really believe He would give the issue of gay marriage a higher priority than the hundreds of other tragedies occurring in the world today?

Would he give the issue of gay marriage ANY priority? I seriously doubt it.

What we experience as "religion" today is man-made, and the result of a million corruptions and interpretations of ancient religious law... all for the sake of controlling the masses.

Time to wake up.

[torrrep]

Pay up:

1. Gay marriage teaches kids that homosexuality is ok. It teaches that it's ok to rebel against God and nature and that there are no repercussions for sin.

2. This is the gay marriage thread. If you want to see posts on Darfur then go to the Darfur thread.

3. Jesus Christ IS around today for all that believe in Him AND follow his commands. Not just the one's you want but ALL of them.

Gay marriage is a SIN. NOT a natural disaster. Christ spent all of his time on Earth discussing sin. I don't recall him mentioning natural disasters. We have no control over those. But we DO have control over sin.

4. There are more ancient manuscripts for the Bible today than there are for the Odyssey the Iliad or any of the ancient Greek writings. The book of Isaiah is has been confirmed by a manuscript that is 2400 years old.

So either pay up or give me references proving me wrong.

[torrrep]

First of 2 Timothy 3:16 says that :"ALL scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." That means ALL scripture. Including those that say homosexuality is sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). You may or not agree with that but it says what it says. So either Paul was a liar or Christ was a liar. What are your references that prove any of the apostles were gay? According to Peter they had wives. I find it hysterical that your screen name and your knowledge of the bible do not match up.

[jcwtts1]

Uhhhh I disagree vehemently with your characterization of the bigoted old bible and with your assertion that gay couples are somehow more stable than straight couples. With that said I believe deeply that marriage is both a religious and civil ceremony and while I don't agree religiously with gay marriage there is a specific separation between church and state. I do not require others to believe as I do, I do not believe that groups of people should be legislated against. Gay marriage is a right not a privilege, a citizen is a citizen.

[torrrep]

I disagree it is NOT a right. It IS a privilege. The state CAN deny marriage certificates at their own at their own discretion. If it is a right then why do I have to PAY for it? Second, their is NO mention of separation of church and state in the constitution. The first amendment was written to protect religion from government. Not the other way around as most people believe.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Whether you're right or not about the first amendment, lots of us feel a need for the protection OF the government FROM the church, and decisions and law subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution have, fortunately, begun to protect individuals from religious oppression. I believe you are repeating "talking points" I have heard hundreds of times. Given how clever and well-read many of the framers were, I would be flabbergasted to discover that no one had reflected upon first amendment protections working both ways.

Marriage, while involving a number of responsibilities on a couple, confers a large raft of advantages to two people. What do you have to pay for your marriage? A licensing fee? For many, the advantages are worth the price. Further, if it's a privilege given through the government, it must be available to ALL individuals in a society or that society cannot claim to treat its citizens equally, nor can such a situation stand up to the fourteenth amendment.

[midknightryder13]

I'm afraid the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. They have ruled that "marriage is a fundamental right". (That's why prisoners can't be denied the right to get married even if they are on death row, with no chance of ever being released.)

Second, the state can indeed restrict the issuance of marriage licences, but they must be able to show a "compelling interest" as to WHY those restrictions are in place. The California Supreme Court has said that the state did not demonstrate one in it's arguments -- that's why the law was overturned.

[torrrep]

That last comment was for another poster. It was placed here by mistake.

[rzan]

I do agree with you this time, Erica.

[Zanti]

It's nice to be able to agree with you on something.

Why would anyone want to stand in the way of someone else's civil rights? Yet, so many would. And some of them wear the label "progressive." Scary.

[AdamX]

I am not anti-gay. I am not part of a lunatic fringe. Fringe? That is the part on the edge of the carpet. Last time I checked, folks in FAVOR of gay marriage are on the fringe. I am not opposed to civil unions of gay folaks, with all the same rights as married heterosexulas. But, I am adamantly apposed to gay marriage, and I look forward to voting against it, with all my heart. Apparently, we now have to redefine what marriage is so it won't hurt anyone's feelings. Nonsense. I know what marriage is. This idea would requite a change in the dictionary. If the call it anything but marriage, great. Marriage is between a man and a woman. So is heterosexual sex! Should we redefine heterosexual to include gays too?

This is an issue about WORDS. I am not interested in redefining words. I'll leave that for the fascists. How about Gayrriage? Then they can get gayrried.

[PlantGod72]

Sorry Adam, but the change has ALREADY occurred, and you can check it for yourself here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage

or here: http://www.onelook.com/?w=marriage&ls=a

or any number of other dictionary sites!

I am SSSSOOOOOO honored that you're not opposed to civil unions of "gay folks", even while you're gleefully and "adamantly apposed to gay marriage", and you "look forward to voting against it, with all (your) heart". But the world is already coming to terms with this reality.

You and others who are marginally accepting and patronizing of the LBGT community seem to think that YOUR life and the meaning YOUR perspective brings to it should define the world around us all, and that "marriage" is just some crazy whim those wacky "gay folks" are up to this year.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but the world is a varied and complex place, not always capable of being held in stasis, though---God knows----the church, patriarchy and any number of cultural systems have tried their best to prove otherwise!

[Zanti]

"This idea would requite a change in the dictionary."

Oh, no! It's not like that has ever happened before.

Words typically retain their meaning for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Not.

I guess you hadn't heard that words change in meaning, or drop out of use altogether, on a regular basis. And new words come in.

Language evoles. No, really.

[Ontariocentric]

So..you support civil unions with all the legal rights as marriage, you support the creation of "gayrriage", and you oppose gay marriage...???

Marriage, and yes even the word itself, has ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING!!!
Otherwise, there would be no such thing as divorce!

This isn't about having our feelings hurt, it's about equality - legal equality and the like.

[Annette]

Adamx; Why are you against gay marriage? Because in an ever evolving world with an ever evolving language you want this word to stay static?? By the way I see that you have no problem with the word gay. Until quite recently that ment happy and light hearted.

In the world we live in things change, you either adapt or you fall behind, that includes language.

[Zanti]

"By the way I see that you have no problem with the word gay. Until quite recently that meant happy and light hearted."

LOL! Exactly.

Meanwhile, in England and Scotland a "fag" means a smoke. Words are the most versatile things they are.

[antaeus]

If you were truly unopposed to civil unions (and one has strong suspicions on that account), then you would use your considerable indignation to work actively to bring about iron-clad legal protections for same-sex couples in all 50 states, immediately. Such a state of affairs would go far in undercutting the current movement towards same-sex marriage.

But it's much easier to passively complain and then simply tick off a "no" vote when you show up for your November ballot anyway.

And I don't know what granite dictionary you carry around, but words change all the time, over centuries, and even from decade to decade. "Inflammable" has had two whiplash swings in the 1900's alone. And "voter" has change meaning quite a bit over the years.

In fact, when you go to school and read Shakespeare, you discover that words are slippery, indeed.

[Didderbops]

Hmmmmm...OK Erica, if you really believe all this, why are you a Hillary supporter? After her husband signing into law the Defense of Marriage act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it should be apparent the Clintons are no fans of the gay community.