Gay Marriage: Obama/McCain/your thoughts?

[Florida Cindy]

Gay Marriage:
Does Obama/Biden and/or McCain/Palin support gay marrage with the same legal rights of heterosexual married couples? What are your THOUGHTS on gay marriage?

[sunnie2004]

I believe all humans no matter what sexual preference they have should have the right to spend their life together "legally" in Gods eye & the goverments eye. No body of goverment has the right to tell people who they should love live & have sex with. It should also be accepted by the goverment for all marriages "legally" done should be allowed to share health benifits mortages & all the same benifits the differnt sex marriages have. JMO
Caren

[JCSimon]

Gay Marriage:
Does Obama/Biden and/or McCain/Palin support gay marrage with the same legal rights of heterosexual married couples? What are your THOUGHTS on gay marriage?

Obama/Biden support civil unions with all the legal rights of married couples but don't want it to be called "gay marriage."

McCain is absolutely against giving any of those rights to gay couples; subscribes to the idea of "don't ask, don't tell." So, I guess that means he's ok with gay people as long as he doesn't know they're gay? I don't have a clue what Palin supports...I've heard her voice two completely opposite opinions on the subject.

[[michele]]

I am for gay marriage.

:) Michele

[JCSimon]

Forgot my views. I think any committed couple, whatever their orientation, should have all the rights that married couples enjoy. I don't give a rip what they call it. It's beyond me how a gay couple being married is supposed to undermine my own marriage and/or family.

[NellieRose]

Homosexual couples should be afforded all the rights heterosexual couples are including the use of the word "marriage".

[vegaschristina]

Forgot my views. I think any committed couple, whatever their orientation, should have all the rights that married couples enjoy. I don't give a rip what they call it. It's beyond me how a gay couple being married is supposed to undermine my own marriage and/or family.

I don't get how there being gay marriages undermines my own marriage either.

[Scorpiosue1102]

I could care less what someone does in their bedroom and I see no reason why gay couples cannot be married, get benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. I also believe that it's not a choice that's just how you are.

[tsaria]

My thoughts are that 'separate but equal' is not equal. I am disappointed that the candidates only want to consider marriage as being between one man and one woman, but it seems like Obama/Biden are more open to gay rights than McCain/Palin are.

Only sort of related, some of my relatives only recently were granted the right to get married in my state. Yay! But now a group of people is trying to change the CA constitution to take away that right. Do you ever want to just shake people? What in the world does my MIL being allowed to get married have to do with anyone else's marriage?!?

[Florida Cindy]

I believe love is love. I believe being gay, straight or other is coded in our DNA. I believe all couples should be able to marry and receive full benefits/rights of married couples.

[vegaschristina]

I don't know the answer to this, but what happens to all of the marriages that have recently happened in California if gay marriages are disallowed? Are they then dissolved?

[HLWalter725]

I'm bothered that neither candidate is as concerned with this issue as I am. I do believe that the Biden/Obama camp are a bit more concerned with rights and privledges and and are willing to grant a civil union as okay.

I think it is fine if your religion and church does not wish to allow two people of the same gender to marry -- as I don't believe the government can dictate what a religious organizations decides on this. On the same token, no one set of relgious beliefs should be allowed to dictate the law of the land.

If we allow a constititional amendmendment to define marriage between a man and a woman, what is going to stop further amendments that define it to exclude interracial marriages or interfaith marriages?

I find it strikely ironic that many who claim to want the government to step out of the way of business, have no issue with the government stepping into the way of individual private lives.

[ayaandjudah]

amen to heather.
this to me is the civil rights of our time. lets get EVERYONE equal rights

[AliSarah]

I believe that homosexual persons should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in marriage as heterosexual persons do.

Huggles!!
~Sarah~

[froggypond]

i believe EVERYONE of ANY sexual orientation, color, religion, etc, should ALL have EQUALITY! i DETEST the fact that our government feels it is OK to dictate and rule on who is allowed benefits of sharing in the benefits of marriage.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Forgot my views. I think any committed couple, whatever their orientation, should have all the rights that married couples enjoy. I don't give a rip what they call it. It's beyond me how a gay couple being married is supposed to undermine my own marriage and/or family.

:clap

[lunafaerie]

I try to stay out of this issue as much as possible, mostly because my own feelings about gay marriage have been much tested this summer as I helped my very dear friend with her wedding announcements and her now her wedding album. Her and her partner of 6 years celebrated in a beautiful ceremony this year and I'm so happy for them!

Before this summer I was taking the Obama/Biden stance and walking a fine line. I'm all about civil rights and that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples, but drew the line at the use of the word marriage. But after watching Angie and Nancy plan and celebrate their union this summer, my heart has changed, but my Catholic mind is having trouble catching up, LOL.

[kjbstevens]

Just as many of the social issues like abortion this is another one that I have a hard time with them saying they really should have any say in allowing or banning. I believe all races, ages, and sexes should all be equal. I also don't see how it hurts anyone else. It's not like they aren't already living the life so just give them the rights to go with it. No one's hurting for giving it, only them without the rights. You'd think they'd actually appreciate the extra money made from fees given the current situation if they'd all go and do it now. Just think of that and the boost to the economy for people buying them wedding presents. I think this is how we save the economy. You all figured it out. :)

[lunafaerie]

You'd think they'd actually appreciate the extra money made from fees given the current situation if they'd all go and do it now. Just think of that and the boost to the economy for people buying them wedding presents. I think this is how we save the economy. You all figured it out. :)

Yep, my county in CA had a spike in wedding related retail sales and venue rentals in August and September.

[lilaclady]

what you said Tania brought tears to my eyes...that your heart has changed due to seeing your friend so happy.
I think it is an amazing turn around for our society.
I can not enter this political debate, as I am in Australia, but we are faced with the same issues. What struck me as proof that we are becoming a more open minded community is when Ellen DeGeneres and Porche deRossi got married, on morning TV here, it was a true celebration of 'Aussie girl makes good' (akin to several years ago when Nicole Kidman married Tom Cruise) It only makes sense that gay couples should have the same legal rights where marriage is concerned. We need to keep moving forward, not stay in the past.

[4noisyboys]

I try to stay out of this issue as much as possible, mostly because my own feelings about gay marriage have been much tested this summer as I helped my very dear friend with her wedding announcements and her now her wedding album. Her and her partner of 6 years celebrated in a beautiful ceremony this year and I'm so happy for them!

Before this summer I was taking the Obama/Biden stance and walking a fine line. I'm all about civil rights and that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples, but drew the line at the use of the word marriage. But after watching Angie and Nancy plan and celebrate their union this summer, my heart has changed, but my Catholic mind is having trouble catching up, LOL.

Very touching story. I'm still where you were, but I know that if any of my friends that are gay were to get married, I would be right there supporting them too.

[Natalie]

When my dh and I were looking to join a church here (when we moved to our little town last year), I really hoped that there would be a UCC (http://www.ucc.org/) congregation (they are, among other things, "open and affirming (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/)" to all seekers), and I was so thrilled when there was. :) I was glad to hear that the pastor emeritus of our little church recently presided over the marriage of a lesbian couple. Would that our country and its leaders could be so forward-thinking and accepting...

[DeniseW]

I think two consenting adults who want to commit themselves to each other should be allowed and encouraged to do so.

I think the word marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies. Civil union should be the legal definition. I mean that in the most encouraging way.

I have a friend who is a big proponent of gay-rights.... and her thoughts are that most gay people would be satisfied with recognition of a civil union as opposed to marriage. I think that if we think of marriage being the religious part and civil union as the legal part, it makes sense. I then think heterosexual couples could opt for a civil union with the same legal benefits. Heck, I know I would choose that for myself if I could, just to make a statement. If I weren't already married. :)

[Glueless Media]

IN my opinion and you ask for it, you may not agree with it and that's ok:)
But marriage is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT,
I agree: marriage should be a holy covenant between one man and one woman...and it should be given back to the churches and not a decision for the GOVT. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with law & civil rights. We should truly separate church & state by taking the special rights & privileges that have thus far been granted based upon a religious ideal, and making them available to any human beings who choose to enter into a contract to be legally and fiscally bound to and responsible for each other for the rest of their lives.
I have Gay, same sex friends and close family who I would love to see have the same rights & privileges as I do. I just don't think Marriage is the title.

[clikchic]

I think two consenting adults who want to commit themselves to each other should be allowed and encouraged to do so.

I think the word marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies. Civil union should be the legal definition. I mean that in the most encouraging way.

I have a friend who is a big proponent of gay-rights.... and her thoughts are that most gay people would be satisfied with recognition of a civil union as opposed to marriage. I think that if we think of marriage being the religious part and civil union as the legal part, it makes sense. I then think heterosexual couples could opt for a civil union with the same legal benefits. Heck, I know I would choose that for myself if I could, just to make a statement. If I weren't already married. :)

I find this an interesting statement. I am Australian and as another poster mentioned we have similar issues here.

I am not religious and am somewhere between athiest and agnostic, my husband is probably closer to agnostic. We therefore were married in a park by a civil celebrant. I really dislike the term civil union. I have no issues with gay marriage being called marriage. I was married by a celebrant and I am married, and like the term married. To me being married has nothing to do with God.

I think gay marriage should be considered the same as hetrosexual marriage, rights and responsiblities included.

Having said all of that, I agree, most gay couples probably would be satisfied with 'civil union' but why should they have to be? Why shouldn't they be allowed to married?

I also believe that sexuality is part of your DNA, something you were born with. I don't believe it is a choice. We should ALL have the same rights.

[[michele]]

I find this an interesting statement. I am Australian and as another poster mentioned we have similar issues here.

I am not religious and am somewhere between athiest and agnostic, my husband is probably closer to agnostic. We therefore were married in a park by a civil celebrant. I really dislike the term civil union. I have no issues with gay marriage being called marriage. I was married by a celebrant and I am married, and like the term married. To me being married has nothing to do with God.

I think gay marriage should be considered the same as hetrosexual marriage, rights and responsiblities included.

Having said all of that, I agree, most gay couples probably would be satisfied with 'civil union' but why should they have to be? Why shouldn't they be allowed to married?

I also believe that sexuality is part of your DNA, something you were born with. I don't believe it is a choice. We should ALL have the same rights.


:thankyouStanding ovation!!! ITA!

:) Michele

[tsaria]

LOL - I'm agnostic - does this mean some ppl think I shouldn't be allowed to be 'married'?

[clikchic]

LOL - I'm agnostic - does this mean some ppl think I shouldn't be allowed to be 'married'?

Apparently so! :blush

ETA: I don't think it is anyone's right to say whether or not ANYONE should be 'married' regardless of sexuality or religious beliefs.

[clikchic]

;1512162']:thankyouStanding ovation!!! ITA!

:) Michele

LOL! Thanks Michele! :-)

[Kazadoodle]

While I don't have a dog in this fight as I live in Australia, like my fellow Aussies have pointed out, gay marriages are an issue here too.

My opinion is that the whole issue shouldn't even be a campaign platform. I'm all for legalising gay marriages (let's face it, in our not so distant past, inter racial marriages were taboo and those were between men and women!), but I don't think it should be an issue or platform in the campaign for President (or Prime Minister in our case). I see it as a 'magician' tactic, you know, distracting the audience with the right hand while the left hand is doing the magic/trickery.

I'm not saying it's not important, because it is, I'm not saying it's not a government issue, because when it comes down to legalities, benefits and rights, clearly it is. What I am saying is, what the heck is the left hand doing while I'm busy watching the right hand?

I need more coffee :)

PS: As to the terms, it really doesn't bother me, marriage, civil union, hand clasping or whatever, if the end result is the same. However, if they want to call it a marriage, they should be allowed to do so.

[kjbstevens]

Yeah we went to Vegas instead of the whole church thing. I don't see how a gay wedding could be any more less of a wedding since we did it for the legal reasons over anything else. That's one reason even though I'm more towards the right than left I don't care. We had a 7-11 sign in the background in our wedding picture. It was hilarious.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

IN my opinion and you ask for it, you may not agree with it and that's ok:)
But marriage is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT,
I agree: marriage should be a holy covenant between one man and one woman...and it should be given back to the churches and not a decision for the GOVT. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with law & civil rights. We should truly separate church & state by taking the special rights & privileges that have thus far been granted based upon a religious ideal, and making them available to any human beings who choose to enter into a contract to be legally and fiscally bound to and responsible for each other for the rest of their lives.
I have Gay, same sex friends and close family who I would love to see have the same rights & privileges as I do. I just don't think Marriage is the title.


So all civil documents should refer to ALL unions as civil unions, and those religious institutions that conducts their own ceremonies that establish *marriages* within their own communities some of which will only permit heterosexual couples to participate, and some of which will let heterosexual and homosexual couples participate, will be permitted to use the term *marriage*, right?
So two trips to do this: one for the civil and one for the religious if one chooses, right? Kinda like France?

[DeniseW]

I should clarify. I'm not religious either. I didn't mean to imply that marriage was reserved for heterosexual religious couples. Ugh. It's hard to say what I mean.

I just think that if you look at it that homosexual couples are looking for the same legal protection that marriage offers heteorsexual couples, if you call it civil union you keep both sides content. Those who want to limit marriage to two heterosexual adults and those who are homosexual and want equal legal rights. That's all I'm saying.

But if a homosexual couple wants to call it 'marriage' I have no problem with that. I was just looking to make it easier with semantics. :) I don't agree with claiming marriage is reserved for one man, one woman. But I don't have a problem with marriage being a religious connotation and civil union being a legal connotation. And if you want, you can have both. Or not. That's all. Maybe there needs to be a better word to have the social/societal connotation... because I think that's where I'm getting confusing regarding the word marriage. So I guess there are three parts: the religious, the societal, and the legal. Now that I think about it, I couldn't care less what the religious component is called (the ones claiming marriage should be one man, one woman) because as an agnostic/atheist leaning person, it doesn't matter to me WHAT the churches say. But the societal word and the legal word are the ones I support homosexuals having equal rights.

Really, I didn't mean to come across as being unsupportive of gay rights. I have several gay friends and would love to be able to photograph any one of their ceremonies. :)

[lsl_scrapper]

Interesting question. I THINK I know what the candidates believe, but I don't KNOW that i know this. I'm sure someone here can reference each candidates position so I can learn more.

As for my view, I have no issue with gay couples, but for some reason, the word 'marriage' does bother me, and I don't know why, so don't ask me to justify it. :p

My personal opinion is that our government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether. Government should regulate legal partnerships and all rights and responsibilities normally accompanying a 'marriage'. Insurance rights, inheritance, etc.

Leave the definition of 'marriage' to religious groups. A church should be allowed to marry or not marry a couple as it feels is right....and it happens now that often times heterosexual couples are denied a church marriage. You can still have a big ceremony and all the trimmings, whether associated with a religious marriage or a legal partnership. I know that some of you don't find that to be satisfactory, but I really do think that anything else is mixing church and state.

[Kazadoodle]

IN my opinion and you ask for it, you may not agree with it and that's ok:)
But marriage is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT,
I agree: marriage should be a holy covenant between one man and one woman...and it should be given back to the churches and not a decision for the GOVT. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with law & civil rights. We should truly separate church & state by taking the special rights & privileges that have thus far been granted based upon a religious ideal, and making them available to any human beings who choose to enter into a contract to be legally and fiscally bound to and responsible for each other for the rest of their lives.
.

I got married in a Church the first time around and I felt a fraud, as I'm not religious. I had a civil ceremony the second time, however, according to your beliefs, I'm not really married. Do you want to tell our daughter that she's really illegitimate?

And, of course, that would also mean that married couples should not be entitled to any government or legal benefits, as it's a religious concept and has nothing to with the law or civil rights. Hmm, not so clear cut, is it?

[Glueless Media]

So all civil documents should refer to ALL unions as civil unions, and those religious institutions that conducts their own ceremonies that establish *marriages* within their own communities some of which will only permit heterosexual couples to participate, and some of which will let heterosexual and homosexual couples participate, will be permitted to use the term *marriage*, right?
So two trips to do this: one for the civil and one for the religious if one chooses, right? Kinda like France?


Miki I am just stating my opinion, not how we can get implement it. Maybe if I wasn't raised and taught that marriage was a holy and santified union between a man and woman my mind would be set to totally agree. I want my Gay family members to have health insurance, partner decisions, etc just not the title marriage as some Catholics here have all ready stated.

[Glueless Media]

I got married in a Church the first time around and I felt a fraud, as I'm not religious. I had a civil ceremony the second time, however, according to your beliefs, I'm not really married. Do you want to tell our daughter that she's really illegitimate?

And, of course, that would also mean that married couples should not be entitled to any government or legal benefits, as it's a religious concept and has nothing to with the law or civil rights. Hmm, not so clear cut, is it?

Oh Karen why even go there? That is NOT what I was saying, I never said anything other than my opinion, now I know why people don't want to give their opinions on anything. If you reread it you will see I am for getting the govt out of the decisions, period! They are personal decisions that need to be made. I am saying ALL UNIONS- ALL UNIONS should have the same rights- Just not be called Marriage. I never said It was clear cut:) BTW I didn't get married in a church either, the church is a building, a place and has no bearing over the ceremony:)

[lsl_scrapper]

I got married in a Church the first time around and I felt a fraud, as I'm not religious. I had a civil ceremony the second time, however, according to your beliefs, I'm not really married. Do you want to tell our daughter that she's really illegitimate?

And, of course, that would also mean that married couples should not be entitled to any government or legal benefits, as it's a religious concept and has nothing to with the law or civil rights. Hmm, not so clear cut, is it?

Actually, to me, it is quite clear cut. The way it is now, at least here, before you have a religious ceremony, you must apply for a marriage license, issued by the government. So yes, you ARE entitled to benefits automatically, because you have a legal, as well as spiritual, marriage.

If you mean in my 'ideal' where the government stays out of the marriage business. You are right....there would be no legal benefits unless you did government sanctioned partnership. Not sure what is not clear cut about that.

[lunafaerie]

I think the point Karin was trying to make was that if marriage is a religious commitment, why is it on any legal documents whatsoever? This is the internal struggle I've been having this summer. I always thought of marriage as a religious commitment, until my friend pointed out to me that I applied for a "marriage" license from the government, not a "civil union" license. Maybe we should just change the term for everyone :shrug

[Glueless Media]

I think the point Karin was trying to make was that if marriage is a religious commitment, why is it on any legal documents whatsoever? This is the internal struggle I've been having this summer. I always thought of marriage as a religious commitment, until my friend pointed out to me that I applied for a "marriage" license from the government, not a "civil union" license. Maybe we should just change the term for everyone :shrug

EXACTLY! I know I may get it from both sides but it is how I feel.
why is it on any legal documents whatsoever? IF I had the answer to that...:shrugThat is why I said In an IDEAL world that is what I would love to see.

[Kazadoodle]

Oh Karen why even go there? That is NOT what I was saying, I never said anything other than my opinion, now I know why people don't want to give their opinions on anything. If you reread it you will see I am for getting the govt out of the decisions, period! They are personal decisions that need to be made. I am saying ALL UNIONS- ALL UNIONS should have the same rights- Just not be called Marriage. I never said It was clear cut:) BTW I didn't get married in a church either, the church is a building, a place and has no bearing over the ceremony:)

Oh I know, but I read your other reply after I had already written this, or was writing this? So they are out of sequence. Never be afraid to share your opinion. I value your opinion and always have, even if we don't always see eye to eye :)

Tania, yep, that is the point I was trying to make, albeit not as well as you :) Thank you.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Miki I am just stating my opinion, not how we can get implement it. Maybe if I wasn't raised and taught that marriage was a holy and santified union between a man and woman my mind would be set to totally agree. I want my Gay family members to have health insurance, partner decisions, etc just not the title marriage as some Catholics here have all ready stated.

Well. I'm just trying to help figure it all out Vickie. LOL!
If the term *marriage* is considered a religious covenant/sacrament/ritual - then the state [government] ought not regulate it at all- across the board- for heterosexuals or homosexuals. In this case, the state issues civil unions to ALL eligible couples and lets each religious affiliation decipher their own application of the term "marriage". No one religion OWNS that term, you know? One religion may very well classify it as a relationship between only a man and a woman- and that is FINE- for its OWN adherents. Another may define it as a covenant between ANY 2 legal adults- and THAT ought to be fine with in the confines of its own doctrines.
But you can't have it both ways- asking the government to sanction one religious groups beliefs and deny another's.
So I am asking for clarification- cause oif we can't get that, we can't go forward.

[gurlonthesun]

Have we, as a world, learned NOTHING from our past? We spent hundreds of years oppressing Africans as slaves because blacks were not really "people". We, as a world, watched as Hitler and his Nazi's wiped out millions of Jews because they weren't "human". We used to be a country were it was unsafe to admit to being homosexual because that made you a deviant and open to discrimination, beatings, and countless infringements on your rights (there was a time that it was OK to expel openly gay students from school because they might bring harm to other "normal" student.). We have oppressed religions, women, ethnic groups, and homosexuals. It seems to me that everytime we gain a step forward in our thinking, we at the same time find a way to take a step back in some manner. Its time that we start learning from our mistakes of the past. People are people are people. Black, green, male, female, Catholic, Jewish, Tree Worshipers, straight or gay.....why does it even freaking matter???????

The sad thing is that even if the powers that be finally get it together to "allow" (I freaking hate that word....) gay marriages/civil unions there will be something/someone/some group that STILL won't have the same rights in one form or another as the rest of us. This is 2008/2009 and we are still fighting the same fights that founded this country....freedom to simply just BE.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Oh I know, but I read your other reply after I had already written this, or was writing this? So they are out of sequence. Never be afraid to share your opinion. I value your opinion and always have, even if we don't always see eye to eye :)

Tania, yep, that is the point I was trying to make, albeit not as well as you :) Thank you.

And I second both of your sentiments to both ladies here.

[Miss Chris]

What really chaps my hide about this issue is that many people that oppose gay marriage claim that it will weaken the institution of marriage. As far as I know, never in the history of mankind has there been an instance in which the extension of rights to all people has weakened that right. Additionally, I never hear of those that are so fearful of marriage being weakend leading a movement to make divorce illegal!!

[clikchic]

I think the problem is, people with religious background see marriage as being a union under God, and non religious people see it as a union between partners. (ETA generally speaking) You will never convince me to give up my title of being married just because I am not religious, have never been baptised etc etc. I suspect there are MANY agnostic or athiest people out there who hold a Marriage certificate who feel the same way.

To some it may be a religious concept, but to many it isn't. We see marriage differently because of our religious beliefs.

I really do not think you can expect gay couples to call it a civil union, when non religious people can call it married. In my books, calling it a civil union because the couple is gay is not equal rights.

I don't mind the concept of having legal and religious marriage but I don't think 'legal' marriage should have to be called civil union. You could be married by the law and married under God for example. You could do one or both, but as far as I am concerned, despite my lack of belief in God, I am Married, and I hold a legally binding marriage certificate to prove it. Gay couples should be able to as well.

[lunafaerie]

I think the problem is, people with religious background see marriage as being a union under God, and non religious people see it as a union between partners. (ETA generally speaking) You will never convince me to give up my title of being married just because I am not religious, have never been baptised etc etc. I suspect there are MANY agnostic or athiest people out there who hold a Marriage certificate who feel the same way.

To some it may be a religious concept, but to many it isn't. We see marriage differently because of our religious beliefs.

I really do not think you can expect gay couples to call it a civil union, when non religious people can call it married. In my books, calling it a civil union because the couple is gay is not equal rights.

I don't mind the concept of having legal and religious marriage but I don't think 'legal' marriage should have to be called civil union. You could be married by the law and married under God for example. You could do one or both, but as far as I am concerned, despite my lack of belief in God, I am Married, and I hold a legally binding marriage certificate to prove it. Gay couples should be able to as well.

All very good points, my head seriously spins on this issue :shrug

[Glueless Media]

Oh I know, but I read your other reply after I had already written this, or was writing this? So they are out of sequence. Never be afraid to share your opinion. I value your opinion and always have, even if we don't always see eye to eye :)

Tania, yep, that is the point I was trying to make, albeit not as well as you :) Thank you.

Phew Karin I thought OH KNOW! lol Yes, you and I have always been friends and I value you and your opinions also.:wub It's just all so utterly confusing.

[Kazadoodle]

I think because it is an issue that is so confusing and incites passion, is the reason why electoral candidates make it a campaign issue. It detracts from the really URGENT issues (I won't say important, as this issue is important, but it's not urgent) that need to be addressed.

[HLWalter725]

I think the problem is, people with religious background see marriage as being a union under God, and non religious people see it as a union between partners. (ETA generally speaking) You will never convince me to give up my title of being married just because I am not religious, have never been baptised etc etc. I suspect there are MANY agnostic or athiest people out there who hold a Marriage certificate who feel the same way.

To some it may be a religious concept, but to many it isn't. We see marriage differently because of our religious beliefs.

I really do not think you can expect gay couples to call it a civil union, when non religious people can call it married. In my books, calling it a civil union because the couple is gay is not equal rights.

I don't mind the concept of having legal and religious marriage but I don't think 'legal' marriage should have to be called civil union. You could be married by the law and married under God for example. You could do one or both, but as far as I am concerned, despite my lack of belief in God, I am Married, and I hold a legally binding marriage certificate to prove it. Gay couples should be able to as well.

Well said!! I'm not religious either, but I am married. And as far as our society are concerned there is not a distinction when you refer to your marital state as to whether it is a religious-based or civil-based union. I am married and at the mall, or my work or my children's school, no one knows unless I tell them what MY definition of marriage is or whether it is a religious pairing or not. I am afforded the same rights as all other married couples. By refering to a gay marriage as a "civil union" implies that theirs is somewhat less of a marriage than any other, and THAT I oppose.

[Glueless Media]

Well. I'm just trying to help figure it all out Vickie. LOL!
If the term *marriage* is considered a religious covenant/sacrament/ritual - then the state [government] ought not regulate it at all- across the board- for heterosexuals or homosexuals. In this case, the state issues civil unions to ALL eligible couples and lets each religious affiliation decipher their own application of the term "marriage". No one religion OWNS that term, you know? One religion may very well classify it as a relationship between only a man and a woman- and that is FINE- for its OWN adherents. Another may define it as a covenant between ANY 2 legal adults- and THAT ought to be fine with in the confines of its own doctrines.
But you can't have it both ways- asking the government to sanction one religious groups beliefs and deny another's.
So I am asking for clarification- cause oif we can't get that, we can't go forward.

:spin:spin:spin:spin:spin See any opinion on this isn't the RIGHT opinion, read further comments..lol There is no pleasing anyone, any where about this. MY one take on how **I** Feel has been taken to the extreme. If we agree with one side, the other side has a field day and vice versa. If you try to make both happy, whats the saying "damned if you do and damned it don't"...I still stand by my first thoughts on this issue. Do what makes each of you happy:yahoo and I will do the same. I don't plan on forcing my issues, opinions on any one today or ever, but if asked I think they should be validated just as the select few who run these boards.:eek

Thanks Miki- I feel the same way, WE don't agree on many things but I like to read your thoughts.:)

[Glueless Media]

I think because it is an issue that is so confusing and incites passion, is the reason why electoral candidates make it a campaign issue. It detracts from the really URGENT issues (I won't so important, as this issue is important, but it's not urgent) that need to be addressed.

I agree but this is NOT one of my issues or deciding factors in this race:)

[Kazadoodle]

Aw Vickie, you went and quoted me and now I see a typo I made :)

[Glueless Media]

Aw Vickie, you went and quoted me and now I see a typo I made :)


HEhe sorry! I know I hate that. I am not the best typist:blush and it happens. Hey Karin, none of us are perfect:p lol

[clikchic]

Well said!! I'm not religious either, but I am married. And as far as our society are concerned there is not a distinction when you refer to your marital state as to whether it is a religious-based or civil-based union. I am married and at the mall, or my work or my children's school, no one knows unless I tell them what MY definition of marriage is or whether it is a religious pairing or not. I am afforded the same rights as all other married couples. By refering to a gay marriage as a "civil union" implies that theirs is somewhat less of a marriage than any other, and THAT I oppose.

Precisely. I don't believe any one religion has the right to say whether someone can be married or not, because there are so many religions out there who all see marriage a little differently, so in my eyes, the religious aspect may be important to you personally but you cannot impose your beliefs on everyone else who has just as much right to be 'Married' as anyone else. How many religious people out there don't consider me married because I am not religious? It just doesn't add up in my books to allow non religious people to be 'married' but not gay people.

Your concept of marriage may be very different to mine, so does that give you a right to say what is or isn't a marriage? I don't think anyone should have that right except the couple themselves. If they want to commit themselves to Marriage under the law I think they should be able to do so no matter who they are.

[Tiffikat]

Honestly, and I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I think people are in general just afraid of change.

When Africans were persecuted and kept as slaves people fought to keep them that way stating that they were somehow less than people. Eventually and thankfully things changed anyways and the world is not less because of it.

When women wanted equal rights men fought against this and I'm sure it was thought that allowing women to vote would cause all sorts of problems. Thankfully again the world evolved and things changed. It didn't cause problems.

When a "white" person and a "black" person wanted to marry it was thought that this would affect the sanctity of marriage. However, eventually it was allowed and it has not hurt marriage or anyone in the slightest.

In 50 years or so I believe we will look back on gay marriage the exact same way that we do on these past incidents. With a bit of sadness that it took so long to change and thankfulness that it did change. You know what, I bet we'll see then too that it didn't hurt anything after all.

[lsl_scrapper]

Well said!! I'm not religious either, but I am married. And as far as our society are concerned there is not a distinction when you refer to your marital state as to whether it is a religious-based or civil-based union. I am married and at the mall, or my work or my children's school, no one knows unless I tell them what MY definition of marriage is or whether it is a religious pairing or not. I am afforded the same rights as all other married couples. By refering to a gay marriage as a "civil union" implies that theirs is somewhat less of a marriage than any other, and THAT I oppose.

I guess what I am proposing is that as a society we CHANGE and de-emphasize the term 'marriage'. I am NOT proposing that hererosexual couples be married in the eyes of the government, and homosexual couples be 'partners'. If you want to be 'married' you will have to find a church that will perform a 'marriage'. 'Marriage' would be relegated to the same status as being 'baptized'. Irrelevant unless your were in church.

[Mad Scrapper]

Wow...there seems to be a lot of food for thought on this board lately. Here is what I have been thinking this entire Presidential Race...

For the first time since I turned 18 I am seriously considering NOT casting a ballot. Why? Because unless something changes, it won't feel like voting for the best candidate, but rather the lesser of 2 evils. (Not that either of them are EVIL...it is just a figure or speech) I just wish that everyone running for office would stop using their own moral values as a platform. Personally, I don't care what any of them think about abortion or same-sex marriages, or birth control. As important as those issues are, I believe they are PERSONAL...those are all things that each of us should decide for ourselves and apply to our own lives. The government needs to BUTT OUT!! There are things that ARE their concern IMO that need fixing. Our men and women in Iraq, families unable to afford heat this winter, our tax dollars having to be spent to bail out companies where the CEO's are still pulling in salaries in the MILLIONS. I want to know what are any of them going to do to fix THOSE issues. Instead, I just get to hear about their own personal beliefs. The reason for my indecision is because I agree w/ both parties on different things...but I still don't know what they are going to do about the actual ISSUES.

As for my personal feelings on Gay Marriages, what 2 other people choose to do, who they fall in love with and who they choose to spend their life with is none of my business. Live and let live. Why shouldn't they be as happy, as legal, and as in it up to their eyeballs as anyone else? Just because Sue and Jane get married in my town, that in NO WAY changes me, my relationships, or anything else about my life. I have homosexual friends, but in all honesty, I don't label them that way. They are my friends, they are PEOPLE. They aren't the rope in some political tug of war and it makes me so sad that others have decided that they should be. These people who march on courthouse steps trying to keep gay marriage illegal need to get a life and go spend some time with the families they are so worried about becoming "lessened" by those they are protesting. In fact, I find it ironic that the main point of their protest is that they don't want "those morals" forced on their happy little white-bread community, but yet they don't think twice about shoving THEIR morals down the throats of those that would probably be happier living their life the way they want quietly and without all the fanfare and publicity. I also agree w/ the poster that commented that if they ammend the constitution to define marriage and 1 man and 1 woman...where does that road go? Where would it end?

[Greedz]

mmmmm to post or not to post.

I don't want marriage as is viewed as a whole. It is to easy to get into and out of them - and the arguement that gay marriage would cause the detrement to society irks me to the point I don't want that "title" per se. I want the protection afforded to a hetrosexual couple that are legally married.

I've moved my family to a state that allows some of the benifits afforded to married couples. I am covered under my partners insurance for example and it was a helpful push in moving to where we did from where we were.

I feel that if I have to follow the laws of the land and pay the taxes and such, my family should have the same protection, that in reality it doesn't.

In the way we live - I stay at home for our kids and for me to be a care giver to my parents and at times, niece and nephew - if something were to happen tomorrow to my partner, I would have nothing but our kids and memories all because of the gender we both are.

If we were opposite gender, my family would be granted "perks" such as social security and such. Instead, we need to double up on insurance and plan extra carefully to ensure each other and our children are protected in the event of something traumatic to our family.

The bottom line for me is protection for my family. My kids did nothing more then come into this world loved and shouldn't have to worry about the basics of life should something happen to one of their parents. Period.

[Tiffikat]

The bottom line for me is protection for my family. My kids did nothing more then come into this world loved and shouldn't have to worry about the basics of life should something happen to one of their parents. Period.

This should be everyone's bottom line in my opinion. I come from a family where the unthinkable happened and my mother died when I was 16, my younger sister was only 9, and my mother's partner had absolutely no rights what so ever. Both my sister and I were uprooted from our schools and homes. I was lucky that being older I was close to moving out anyways and I got my own place at 17. My step-mother (though not official she was also my mother) fought for custody of my sister and they wouldn't even consider her, even though she had been the only other mother my sister had known.

[Natalie]

I went to look up the rights guaranteed to us through the Bill of Rights. These include

- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of religion
- Right to keep and bear arms
- Freedom of assembly
- Freedom to petition

It also prohibits:
- Unreasonable search and seizure
- Compelled self-incrimination
- Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion
- the Federal Govt from depriving any person of life, liberty, property without due process of law

I'm curious about a few things, since I'm not an attorney and I've never studied law. According to Wikipedia, the Ninth Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Then, when I look at the First Amendment, I see that it states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.I can't imagine how it can be argued that the original signers of the Constitution would a) ever have considered those arguments from people whose religion causes them to believe that marriage is solely the providence of a man and a woman, and therefore, b) if the religiously-inspired argument against homosexual marriage cannot be Constitutionally protected, then the Ninth Amendment should preserve the right of these folks to call their union "marriage".

Of course, it makes sense that the cultural notion of marriage would have evolved as meaning that between a man and a woman, because that is how humans propagated. But here we are, and we needn't be concerned that humans are going to die out (at least, not b/c we "allow" homosexuals to call their unions, "marriages"), so those whose religious teaching causes them to think it is NOT a marriage shouldn't legally cause the government, or even a state, to amend the Constitution (which is designed to protect our most basic rights as humans and as members of our country - not to pander to the religious folk who have their own opinions about the matter) to deny homosexuals of using this term. It doesn't make sense to me to create a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to define marriage. We all agree (except for a few in Utah and Texas, apparently) that polygamy is not tolerated - that a marriage is between two (and two exactly) people - so those who believe in the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman aren't denied their belief, but their belief isn't used to deny a different definition (which still adheres to the "two-person" rule) of marriage between homosexuals.

Beyond that, isn't it just semantics? I know there are churches which will not and do not make this sort of discriminating distinction (as I posted, my church is among them), but while I wouldn't ever think it would be appropriate to compel a religion's followers to perform a marriage which doesn't adhere to their interpretation, the adherants of that church/religion shouldn't get to define it for those of us who don't have an issue with homosexual marriage. This isn't a Constitutional or even a legal distinction, and our courts and laws shouldn't be in the business of defining or legislating it.

[Kazadoodle]

Kelly, your concerns are just so close to my heart. One of the biggest reasons I got married last to year to my partner of 8 years was so that we were more able to protect our daughter in the legal sense. While a defacto couple (and in my case it just happens to be a hetro one, not that it matters) has a lot of rights, there are some rights we weren't afforded. While we could find a resolution to our problems, that you can't, I still very much emphasise wiht the position that you are in.

[clikchic]

I guess what I am proposing is that as a society we CHANGE and de-emphasize the term 'marriage'. I am NOT proposing that hererosexual couples be married in the eyes of the government, and homosexual couples be 'partners'. If you want to be 'married' you will have to find a church that will perform a 'marriage'. 'Marriage' would be relegated to the same status as being 'baptized'. Irrelevant unless your were in church.

Yes, see I don't think you should have to be 'Married' in a church to be 'Married'. I don't think we should change the term Married at all, that is what I am and what I intend to remain. The point is, many Married people who wish to stay that way were not married in church, and should not have to be to be 'Married'. The church is not the law. I was married by a celebrant in a park, does that mean if the term marriage was 'de-emphasised' I can no longer say I am married? To that concept I respectfully but strongly disagree.

The problem with this is, I do not see Marriage as being anything like being baptized. It is not a religious thing for me and nor should it have to be. Imposing the belief that you have to be married in a church on everyone else in my opinion is simply wrong and too simplistic an approach.

Why can't you be married by law and/or married by the church? I am committed to my husband as any religious person is, so just because I wasn't married in a church I can't call myself that? And by the same kind of logic, why can't gay couples call themselves married with ALL the same rights and 'perks'.

This should be everyone's bottom line in my opinion. I come from a family where the unthinkable happened and my mother died when I was 16, my younger sister was only 9, and my mother's partner had absolutely no rights what so ever. Both my sister and I were uprooted from our schools and homes. I was lucky that being older I was close to moving out anyways and I got my own place at 17. My step-mother (though not official she was also my mother) fought for custody of my sister and they wouldn't even consider her, even though she had been the only other mother my sister had known.

I agree, the bottom line is gay couples should have the same rights and protections as anyone else, and that is most definately paramount and I believe an URGENT issue. In Australia as well as the US.

[tsaria]

It would be fantastic if the gov't would step completely out of the marriage picture =) Civil unions for everyone!:cheer:yahoo

[Greedz]

Kelly, your concerns are just so close to my heart. One of the biggest reasons I got married last to year to my partner of 8 years was so that we were more able to protect our daughter in the legal sense. While a defacto couple (and in my case it just happens to be a hetro one, not that it matters) has a lot of rights, there are some rights we weren't afforded. While we could find a resolution to our problems, that you can't, I still very much emphasise wiht the position that you are in.


Where my partner and I in our relationship, we are entering into having a second generation of children and the fears I have in me with this is something I never thought I would ever face honestly.

I hate when the issue as a whole is brought to terms with most of the terms ignoring the bigger picture - family.

I don't like the blood agrguement. Because one of us is the biological parent means nothing. It really is no different then adopting. Are those children / parents / families any less because of the lack of shared blood?

When the debates come up around this issue, I wish people would step back and think about the bigger picture - kids / family. I love our kids, they love me, my partner loves our kids, our kids love her. We are a family. Have the same family arguments, bed times, chores, trips and such.

To trim it down to two people wanting to be "married" just doesn't cover it for me. The kids get lost in this and it is sad. Tiffikat showed that from her words. Her family was effected - and she was a child herself when it happened to her family. And it shouldn't have. So senseless IMO.

I don't want that struggle for our children here and now and the children we are planning for.

Children shouldn't have to loose all they know over something like this especially if another loss is tied to what causes the end result That's just beating someone further when they are down. It is sensless, cruel, and uncalled for.

And please excuse my typos, I had a full day with my son today and running on empty and was caught up reading how supportive this thread is compared to some I've witnessed and it is refreshing. I am seeing women here saying they are seeing things through different eyes when the issue strikes close to them. It's sad it has to strike, but it is heart warming that people are seeing and learning and really seeing it is more then what is thought of if that makes sense.

[Beth Swann]

I'm obviously in the minority here but I just have to state for the record that I am fervently and adamantly against same-sex marriage. I am not anti-gay. I have two friends whom I've known and loved since high school who classify themselves as gay. They are great people but I do not condone their lifestyle choices.

I live in California and I'm very concerned about the effects Proposition 8 will have on our society as a whole, and my children more specifically.

Massachussettes has already legalized same-sex marriage and this is what's already happening there:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319

It's not only about same-sex marriages, it's also ALL the hundreds of repercussions that are going to follow it. For instance, my rights as a parent to teach my children the moral principles we follow in our home as a Christian family would be seriously compromised (if not annihilated) if Prop 8 doesn't pass and my children will be forced to be taught by public schools that same-sex unions are morally okay and acceptable without my knowledge or permission starting at the tender ages of kindergarten. (The video link explains it all. It may take a few tries to get it to work but it's worth the time.)

[clikchic]

I'm obviously in the minority here but I just have to state for the record that I am fervently and adamantly against same-sex marriage. I am not anti-gay. I have two friends whom I've known and loved since high school who classify themselves as gay. They are great people but I do not condone their lifestyle choices.

I live in California and I'm very concerned about the effects Proposition 8 will have on our society as a whole, and my children more specifically.

Massachussettes has already legalized same-sex marriage and this is what's already happening there:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319

It's not only about same-sex marriages, it's also ALL the hundreds of repercussions that are going to follow it. For instance, my rights as a parent to teach my children the moral principles we follow in our home as a Christian family would be seriously compromised (if not annihilated) if Prop 8 doesn't pass and my children will be forced to be taught by public schools that same-sex unions are morally okay and acceptable without my knowledge or permission starting at the tender ages of kindergarten. (The video link explains it all. It may take a few tries to get it to work but it's worth the time.)

It is not about you condoning their lifestyle choices or not, that's just the point, it is their choice not yours. That doesn't mean you can't teach your children your morals. It doesn't mean they will follow them, regardless as to what society allows. Your children will make up their own minds when they are old enough to.

I am athiest/agnostic but I allow my daughter to attend religion classes (which they hold once a week) at school. What she learns irks me to no end because I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with it, but I want her to be fully armed with all the knowledge she can get, from both sides, so that she can make her own decision and be stronger for it. At this stage she tells me she believes in God and dinosaurs and that is fine with me. She knows that some people don't believe in God and some people who believe in God, don't believe in dinosaurs, and she also knows that some people believe in both. I will not force my opinions on her. I will tell them to her and teach her the opinions of others and do my best to remain unbiased. I want her to make up her own mind when she is old enough to based on what she has learned growing up.

In regards to the different types of families out there, I have explained to her in a language that a 6 year old can understand, that some kids have two mummies, some have two daddies, some have a mummy, daddy and step daddy or what have you. I tell her we are all different but no one way is better than another. I guess those are my morals, as I tend to be very open minded, and I would like my daughter to be the same.

There is no reason you can't teach your morals to your child despite what changes may occur. But you can't expect people to adhere to your morals just because that is what you believe. We all have different beliefs and we can't expect everyone to do things the same way as we think they should be done.

I am not at home at the moment, so can't check out the video, I will do so when I get home.

[Greedz]

The book sited in the ad is a book about many different families - single parent, divorced, married, biracial and gay. I hardly think that's teaching sexuality to a child and is showing that it's ok for children to not be cut from the same cloth and still be equal to their peers.

Thanks for the reference off to buy it. :wub

[Natalie]

I watched the movie.

It doesn't affect your family, even in Massachusetts, if you opt not to send your children to public school. A parochial school might be best for a family like that, or homeschooling, if they felt so strongly that their children shouldn't be exposed to that information.

But I do think there is no harm in acknowledging that not all families are like the traditional man/woman/kids family that seems to be the Parkers' reference standard. OTOH, I'm sure there are children in those classrooms whose families would be considered, um, diverse. And I don't think those children should be told, explicitly or implicitly, that their families are not acceptable, or an abomination, or simply that they just aren't quite right.

And again, these are public schools - you can't, and shouldn't, expect them to create a solely Judeo-Christian interpretation of what constitutes a family.

I'm not sure how this should be a parent-notification issue, either. Most 5-year olds can't read a book like that, so it would be incumbent upon the parent to read it (or not) to the child. And certainly, it seems like expecting the school to conform to the Judeo-Christian value system (loosely defined; I'm a Christian and I don't agree with the Parkers) is unreasonable - it's a government building and institution, paid for with government funds - funds which came from Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, hetero-, bi-, and homosexuals, and pretty much any other designation we use to categorize people.

The obvious solution is to talk to your children about your beliefs, even if that means you feel like you must refute something sent home by the school. It's not the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last, but in any event, a public school's government funding means that it can reasonably be expected to adhere to the notion of "separation of church and state".

This is wildly different than something that puts these children in danger or in harm's way, and (in anticipation of the next argument) exposing them to this information, and prompting a conversation between parent and child about something such as this, does not put the child's soul at risk, either.

And that's the thing: parents have a right to exercise their religion, so long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land, but religious parents don't have the right to force everyone else to conform to their beliefs. That's what the Puritans were trying to escape, wasn't it?

[vegaschristina]

It's not only about same-sex marriages, it's also ALL the hundreds of repercussions that are going to follow it. For instance, my rights as a parent to teach my children the moral principles we follow in our home as a Christian family would be seriously compromised (if not annihilated) if Prop 8 doesn't pass and my children will be forced to be taught by public schools that same-sex unions are morally okay and acceptable without my knowledge or permission starting at the tender ages of kindergarten.


There are lots of things that your children will be taught in school that you might not agree with...evolution as an example...that are not biblically based. That doesn't mean that you can't, when your kids get home, tell them that while you learned something in school today, this is what we believe...

[clikchic]

There are lots of things that your children will be taught in school that you might not agree with...evolution as an example...that are not biblically based. That doesn't mean that you can't, when your kids get home, tell them that while you learned something in school today, this is what we believe...

Exactly! My daughter knows I do not believe in God, but she learns about God in school and I teach her what my beliefs are, what my husbands are and she learns about Jesus etc at school. I do not agree with what she learns, not even remotely, but I still have the opportunity to discuss with her my beliefs and she understands that not everyone believes the same thing.

When she is old enough, I plan on telling her about homosexuality because it is something she will come across as she grows older. Like it or not, it is a part of society, a part of life. It may not be what you choose, but it is still there. We can't just sweep it under the carpet and hope our children will never have to deal with it.

Your children learning about the things you disagree with at school is a
great opportunity for you to discuss what you DO believe with them.

[JCSimon]

mmmmm to post or not to post.

I don't want marriage as is viewed as a whole. It is to easy to get into and out of them - and the arguement that gay marriage would cause the detrement to society irks me to the point I don't want that "title" per se. I want the protection afforded to a hetrosexual couple that are legally married.

I've moved my family to a state that allows some of the benifits afforded to married couples. I am covered under my partners insurance for example and it was a helpful push in moving to where we did from where we were.

I feel that if I have to follow the laws of the land and pay the taxes and such, my family should have the same protection, that in reality it doesn't.

In the way we live - I stay at home for our kids and for me to be a care giver to my parents and at times, niece and nephew - if something were to happen tomorrow to my partner, I would have nothing but our kids and memories all because of the gender we both are.

If we were opposite gender, my family would be granted "perks" such as social security and such. Instead, we need to double up on insurance and plan extra carefully to ensure each other and our children are protected in the event of something traumatic to our family.

The bottom line for me is protection for my family. My kids did nothing more then come into this world loved and shouldn't have to worry about the basics of life should something happen to one of their parents. Period.

ITA :clap You *should* have all the same rights - and your *children* should have all the same rights - as we and our children do.

My daughter's godparents are a gay couple. When she was little, we went to make a will giving custody to them if something happened to us. We were told (in three different states!) that the custody issue would never hold up in court if anyone in either of our families wanted to contest it. That infuriates me still....we don't even have the right to choose who would raise our children???

I am so, so tired of all the divisions.

Thank you for posting. :wub

[lsl_scrapper]

My daughter's godparents are a gay couple. When she was little, we went to make a will giving custody to them if something happened to us. We were told (in three different states!) that the custody issue would never hold up in court if anyone in either of our families wanted to contest it. That infuriates me still....we don't even have the right to choose who would raise our children???

I'm sure being gay is a big factor, but not the only one. I've been told the same thing basically, and not with a gay couple. Basically, I've been told that a custody provision in a will is, at best, a suggestion. Particularly when to ANY non-family member if a family member chooses to fight it. I don't like that, but I'm told that that IS the way it is.

[lsl_scrapper]

The problem with this is, I do not see Marriage as being anything like being baptized. It is not a religious thing for me and nor should it have to be. Imposing the belief that you have to be married in a church on everyone else in my opinion is simply wrong and too simplistic an approach.

I agree, the bottom line is gay couples should have the same rights and protections as anyone else, and that is most definately paramount and I believe an URGENT issue. In Australia as well as the US.

I DO understand what you are saying, and yes, I guess it is semantics and we just disagree. Marriage started out as a religious thing.....most government did. We've separated religion out of most parts of government, and I'm just suggesting we complete that. Yes, I would say you would no longer be considered 'married', but who cares? (I know you do...that is just an expression). The term married would't come up in most normal conversations, any more than 'are you baptized' or 'did you take communion today'. Outside of church, it would be a meaningless term. Really though, it IS just semantics, and I don't care. I don't really care if gay couples go through the ceremony of marriage, as long as they can live that way. (I've never cared if heterosexual couples go through a formal ceremony either, for the record. If THEY say the are a family, it is good enough for me.) I just don' think it is governments place to decide who can be a couple in the eyes of God....let the churches do their thing there, and let the government make sure everyone has rights. (I'm not saying 'protections' because I believe there are obligations on the partners as well as benefits.)

[lsl_scrapper]

I can't imagine how it can be argued that the original signers of the Constitution would a) ever have considered those arguments from people whose religion causes them to believe that marriage is solely the providence of a man and a woman, and therefore, b) if the religiously-inspired argument against homosexual marriage cannot be Constitutionally protected, then the Ninth Amendment should preserve the right of these folks to call their union "marriage".

I'm not a lawyer either...

I know one argument will go that the founders never meant to exclude 'religious' values. That these were all 'men of God' and would never have anticipated some things would be questioned...same-sex marriage. So there was no reason to specifically address it.

Whatever....I do know that somewhere in the constitution, it says anything not directly addressed by the constitution is left to the states. And again, I'm not sure, but I think that because it isn't specifically addressed, I'm assuming, for some of the reasons you gave, that if challenged in court, unless the STATE has a law 'protecting marriage', probably same-sex marriage would hold up.

That is why some people are pushing for an amendment to specifically address the issue. Then, I guess, it would not matter if states allowed gay marriage...the laws could be found unconstitutional.

I'm not sure about any of this, but that is how I interpret it.

[HLWalter725]

I DO understand what you are saying, and yes, I guess it is semantics and we just disagree. Marriage started out as a religious thing.....most government did. We've separated religion out of most parts of government, and I'm just suggesting we complete that. Yes, I would say you would no longer be considered 'married', but who cares? (I know you do...that is just an expression). The term married would't come up in most normal conversations, any more than 'are you baptized' or 'did you take communion today'. Outside of church, it would be a meaningless term. Really though, it IS just semantics, and I don't care. I don't really care if gay couples go through the ceremony of marriage, as long as they can live that way. (I've never cared if heterosexual couples go through a formal ceremony either, for the record. If THEY say the are a family, it is good enough for me.) I just don' think it is governments place to decide who can be a couple in the eyes of God....let the churches do their thing there, and let the government make sure everyone has rights. (I'm not saying 'protections' because I believe there are obligations on the partners as well as benefits.)

Okay, so then let's let the religious ceremony be a "religious union" and keep marriage meaning exactly what it does now in the civil arena and incorporate ALL couples that decide to go through the committment of marriage.



I also want to add that one of the reasons I am for gay marriage is that I am against domestic partnership benefits. I don't think that living with your partner is the same thing as making a life long committment to be with them and create a family together. I lived with my husband before we got married and it was certainly not the same as after we took our vows. I think that taking the comittment (religious or civil doesn't matter to me) is meaningful. You comitt to something for the purpose of seeing through the bad times, you don't need a comittment in the good times. Domestic partnerships are easily broken and are not the same, and yet gay couples are forced to have no choice but have a domestic partnership instead of marriage.

As Kelly pointed out above more eloquently than I, a marriage is more than just two people wanting to be together but about a creation of a family. And those families deserve protection. Those children deserve to know that they have two parents, not a mom and her partner. And while religious beliefs may force some to tell their children otherwise, I refuse to accept that any child should be taught that their family situation is any less acceptable than any other.

[Beth Swann]

If I did not know better myself, I would probably share some of the same beliefs many of you here have. But my beliefs are based on the teachings of the scriptures and doctrines and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our church created the following press release and I would like to share it with everyone here.

The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [1] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn1)Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” [2] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn2)


In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage: We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [3] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn3)

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. [4] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn4)Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” [5] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn5)

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.


High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. [6] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn6)This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said: The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [7] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn7)Popenoe explained that: . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [8] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn8)Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. [9] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn9)In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.

Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn10)Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn11)At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. [12] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn12)

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn13)Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn14)Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained, Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn15)The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn16)

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn17)Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn18)

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn19)Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

(Continued in the next post...)

[Beth Swann]

(Continued from previous post)

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.

You can find this press release here:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

[Beth Swann]

Here's another great article about the repercussions of this issue:

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100608)


NPR.org (http://www.npr.org/), June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

Link for this article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

[HLWalter725]

But see.... the thing is that the doctrines you use to argue to me are meaningless to me. They are not from my belief system and no one religion has the right to dictate government law. You (general you) are welcome to live your life in accord with them and teach them to your children, but you are not given the right to use the bible as MY constitution.

[Beth Swann]

Something else to consider from a liberal democrat:

Protecting marriage to protect children




Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
» Discuss Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-db19-2008sep19,0,3206571.graffitiboard) (74 Comments) (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-db19-2008sep19,0,3206571.graffitiboard)

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.



But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.


These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

Link for article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

[Natalie]

The post immediately above this would seem to be an argument against adoption, and especially adoption by a single parent.

I would argue that children deserve to be loved and cherished; biology doesn't necessarily have the corner on that market.

As for the earlier post with the LDS quotes and references: I'm not LDS, and just as you would not want to be held accountable to the tenets and beliefs of another religion (either another Protestant religion, or something outside of the realm of Christianity), neither should anyone else be compelled to abide by your faith's interpretation of the Bible and other documents of the Mormon faith. That is a right each of us hold - to have our own religion (or no religion), and to be free from persecution by those who are not followers of that religion/beliefs. The book sent home by the Mass school system wasn't persecution; it might have been contrary to the Parkers' beliefs, but they have a right to tell their child what THEY believe, and/or a right to remove their children from a government-funded school.

Obviously, the former pastor at my church, who presided recently over the marriage of a lesbian couple, has a different perception of what those words mean today. I'm not a homosexual, but I'm glad to know that there are some religious clergy who can find a way to embrace and respect the commitment between two people who choose to love and cherish and remain faithful to each other, and to unite them in a marriage sanctioned by a loving God.

[sunnie2004]

But see.... the thing is that the doctrines you use to argue to me are meaningless to me. They are not from my belief system and no one religion has the right to dictate government law. You (general you) are welcome to live your life in accord with them and teach them to your children, but you are not given the right to use the bible as MY constitution.

absolutely & Amen! I couldnt agree more

[tsaria]

But see.... the thing is that the doctrines you use to argue to me are meaningless to me. They are not from my belief system and no one religion has the right to dictate government law. You (general you) are welcome to live your life in accord with them and teach them to your children, but you are not given the right to use the bible as MY constitution.

ITA, and I *hate* when people use their religion to try to justify changing the constitution!

[clikchic]

But see.... the thing is that the doctrines you use to argue to me are meaningless to me. They are not from my belief system and no one religion has the right to dictate government law. You (general you) are welcome to live your life in accord with them and teach them to your children, but you are not given the right to use the bible as MY constitution.

I wholeheartedly agree. You cannot expect people who do not follow your religion to accept these beliefs as their own. None of what is written there is remotely relevant to me or a very large portion of the community.

The post immediately above this would seem to be an argument against adoption, and especially adoption by a single parent.

I would argue that children deserve to be loved and cherished; biology doesn't necessarily have the corner on that market.



I agree, a child will not care if they are loved by a man and a woman, two woman or two men, what matters most to them is that they are loved and cherished. Ideally every child would have two parents, but life is not always ideal and no one can predict what the future will bring. A family is not necessarily entirely biological. A family is created with love of one another.

[Kazadoodle]

hmm, all I can say is that if you look at the news, you will find that it's often the so called 'normal' hetro sexual couples who are abusing their children, and not the same sex couple. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in a same sex relationship, but it sure happens a whole lot less. I think one of the reasaons is that because they are 'outcasts' in the society in the first place, the fact that they choose to remain committed to each other despite that, and have children, makes for a much stronger bond. My opinion, of course, only.

Quoting doctrines to prove your point is always a 'dangerous' thing, I could quote you doctirnes that show that cancer treamtent, IVF etc etc are also against the laws of God.

[Kazadoodle]

Marriage started out as a religious thing.


There's no proof of this. I researched it, as a result of this thread and replies, and it turns out that marriage was largely political. The idea was to make firmer alliances between countries, shires, or whatever.

[amyb]

Something else to consider from a liberal democrat:

Protecting marriage to protect children




Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
» Discuss Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-db19-2008sep19,0,3206571.graffitiboard) (74 Comments) (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-db19-2008sep19,0,3206571.graffitiboard)

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.



But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.


These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

Link for article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

I am so glad you spoke up! I agree with this whole heartedly because I am a Christian and I believe this is how God intended the family to be. One man and one woman to marry and procreate. Of course, because of sin, the institution of family has disintegrated so it is not always possible for the biological family to be together. Thus, adoption or single parenthood. However, I think the best case scenario is for mom, dad and children to remain as a family, all other things being equal.

I, of course do not believe that marriages should stay in tact when abuse etc... has entered the picture. And, I have a single friend who adopted a child from the Philippines just two weeks ago. For that child the most wonderful thing to happen to her was for my single friend to adopt her.

On the matter of gay marriage - I believe as a Christian that God intended for marriage to be for one man and one woman. Let's just look at our body parts people - it's pretty easy to figure out. I realize that I'm going to get blasted for that but that's the way I see it AND it's what the Bible teaches. If you're not a Christian then the Bible has no bearing on the argument for you. By the way, believe it or not, I do have gay friends. One of them played the organ at my wedding. But, they know how I feel just as I know how they feel.

This is one of those arguments that will never end, I'm sure!

[Kazadoodle]

I realize that I'm going to get blasted for that


No one has yet blasted anyone and I don't understand why you felt the need to say this. All I see is a civil debate. People putting their views across. It may be heated and emotional, but it is an intense subject.

I actually want to give kudos to everyone who has replied in this topic for remaining civil. It's been an enlightening discussion.

[clikchic]

On the matter of gay marriage - I believe as a Christian that God intended for marriage to be for one man and one woman. Let's just look at our body parts people - it's pretty easy to figure out. I realize that I'm going to get blasted for that but that's the way I see it AND it's what the Bible teaches. If you're not a Christian then the Bible has no bearing on the argument for you. By the way, believe it or not, I do have gay friends. One of them played the organ at my wedding. But, they know how I feel just as I know how they feel.

This is one of those arguments that will never end, I'm sure!

See that's the thing, there are many many people in this world who are not christian, and no one can expect everyone to live by their beliefs. Just because you are against gay marriage shouldn't mean gay couples can't marry. Their beliefs are obviously different to yours as are mine. This is precisely why the law should not dictate by the laws of God or the bible, because these religious laws do not apply to all people and should not have any bearing on whether gay couples have a right to marry or whether they should have the same legal rights.

All people should have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation, race or creed.

[gurlonthesun]

But see.... the thing is that the doctrines you use to argue to me are meaningless to me. They are not from my belief system and no one religion has the right to dictate government law. You (general you) are welcome to live your life in accord with them and teach them to your children, but you are not given the right to use the bible as MY constitution.

What's the equivilant of an online standing ovation? Because whatever it is....YOU DESERVE IT!!!!

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

On the matter of gay marriage - I believe as a Christian

OK, but what about those who believe that "On the matter of gay marriage - I believe as a homosexual...."

Why should their lives be dictated by the religious beliefs of others? Especially when they are at odds with their own....

[emmers4life]

I think anything other than a completely equal playing field for all people of all sexualities is intolerant.

I believe that this is no different than racial rights or gender rights issues. If it is extended to some people, it should be extended to all. As far as a legal standing.

I find it too convenient for anyone to say that someone else can have the legal rights, but call it something less, because it is still not recognized in whatever institution they belong to that is NOT part of our government. If the term marriage refers to our unions, than marriage for everyone!

I did not file for a civil union license, and neither should any of my gay friends. If I had, then maybe using that term would be more acceptable for me. But I got a marriage license, so why would I want anyone else to be forced to call it something different?

Like someone else said before me, separate but equal is NOT equal!!!

[emmers4life]

All people should have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation, race or creed.

Or religious beliefs.

[clikchic]

I think anything other than a completely equal playing field for all people of all sexualities is intolerant.

I believe that this is no different than racial rights or gender rights issues. If it is extended to some people, it should be extended to all. As far as a legal standing.

I find it too convenient for anyone to say that someone else can have the legal rights, but call it something less, because it is still not recognized in whatever institution they belong to that is NOT part of our government. If the term marriage refers to our unions, than marriage for everyone!

I did not file for a civil union license, and neither should any of my gay friends. If I had, then maybe using that term would be more acceptable for me. But I got a marriage license, so why would I want anyone else to be forced to call it something different?

Like someone else said before me, separate but equal is NOT equal!!!

Oh you have said everything I have been trying to say so much better than I could! ITA!!! :clap

[clikchic]

Or religious beliefs.

Ooh, how could I miss that one! Precisely!

[Franbvm]

I don't care what either think...i think this should be decided by states.....i personally dont care either way....just think its funny younger heterosexual generation doesn't want marriage and live together and have kids together and gays want marriage!

[tsaria]

On the matter of gay marriage - I believe as a Christian that God intended for marriage to be for one man and one woman. Let's just look at our body parts people - it's pretty easy to figure out. I realize that I'm going to get blasted for that but that's the way I see it AND it's what the Bible teaches. If you're not a Christian then the Bible has no bearing on the argument for you.

Exactly the point! I'd love to hear a reason that's not to do with religion...separation of church and state being a major theme and all...

[lsl_scrapper]

If I did not know better myself, I would probably share some of the same beliefs many of you here have. But my beliefs are based on the teachings of the scriptures and doctrines and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our church created the following press release and I would like to share it with everyone here.


Beth, thank you for sharing that. But I think it is important to realize it is based no on the Bible, but on how YOUR church interprets the Bible. Not all churches, or individuals, interpret it this way. That is why I would ask that the government not regulate civil unions...whether we refer to them as marriage or something else. Churches should not set national policies.

[lsl_scrapper]

There's no proof of this. I researched it, as a result of this thread and replies, and it turns out that marriage was largely political. The idea was to make firmer alliances between countries, shires, or whatever.

I think you may have missed my point. Yes, marriages were made for political alliances, but even before that.....I'm talking EARLY on....it was always the spiritual leader of the 'tribe' that gave the blessing to the marriage. The bans were always (in christian settings) read in a church, etc. I'm just saying marriage evolved not as a political institution, but a religious one. And since the head of the church in early civiliation was always very powerful in the government, it is natural that there was overlap. Not the reasons for individual marriages, but the concept of marriage itself.


Okay....I may be wrong on some of this, although from what I remember of anthropology and early cultures it is true. However, Wikipedia seems to refute at least some of it. In any event, here is a quote from Wiki..

"In the early modern period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_period), John Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) and his Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-15) for recognition. That was the first state involvement in marriage.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]"

So at least in Christianlity, there was no government involvement at the beginning.

You can read the whole Wiki article here....a lot of stuff on same sex marriage in Greek times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[clikchic]

I think you may have missed my point. Yes, marriages were made for political alliances, but even before that.....I'm talking EARLY on....it was always the spiritual leader of the 'tribe' that gave the blessing to the marriage. The bans were always (in christian settings) read in a church, etc. I'm just saying marriage evolved not as a political institution, but a religious one. And since the head of the church in early civiliation was always very powerful in the government, it is natural that there was overlap. Not the reasons for individual marriages, but the concept of marriage itself.

The origin of marriage is to me irrelevant. People TODAY are married under the law regardless of religion. All people should be afforded the SAME right.

ETA: any other way would be prejudicial and unjust.

[Kazadoodle]

I'm just saying marriage evolved not as a political institution, but a religious one.

No, they may have been blessed by a spiritual leader, church, whatever, but the reason was still political, not religious.

My point being that arguing "the church" says marriage is this, is completely irrelevant. Historically, marriage often times had nothing to do with religion at all and everything to do with politics.

[Trina]

Forgot my views. I think any committed couple, whatever their orientation, should have all the rights that married couples enjoy. I don't give a rip what they call it. It's beyond me how a gay couple being married is supposed to undermine my own marriage and/or family.

YOU GO GIRL!!! :yahoo

Since this actually hits me VERY CLOSE to home (my brother), I am extremely passionate about this issue, and every time I hear someone (politician or otherwise) say that homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, it's all I can do to not punch their lights out :smackdown Is my brother's $exual orientation REALLY undermining your own marriage or family? Hardly. He doesn't push his $exual orientation in your face...He is simply living a lifestyle that makes him happy...and that makes me happy...so I think everyone who thinks otherwise should just mind their own business, and leave the poor homosexual population be.

For the most part, homosexuals are EXTREMELY friendly and would give the shirts off their backs if asked. It's just too bad that heterosexuals don't reciprocate.

Sorry if that was harsh, but this means a lot to me.

[lunafaerie]

i think this should be decided by states!

Too bad the rest of the country doesn't agree. A lot of the funding for Yes on 8 in California (to change California's Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman) has come from other states, not CA. Ticks me off, they should stay out of our state constitution if they don't pay CA taxes!

[Trina]

What's the equivilant of an online standing ovation? Because whatever it is....YOU DESERVE IT!!!!

Isn't that the truth??? :clap :clap :clap

[ccubed]

That is why some people are pushing for an amendment to specifically address the issue.

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was already defeated in 2006 and yes, the "maverick" McCain along with six other republicans voted to kill this ammendment. ;)

How hideous it would have been to tack something like this onto a document as unique and beautiful as our constitution.

[strangejen]

one disagreement my husband and I can't get past is the gay thing. I belong to a church that is "welcoming and affirming" of GLBT folks, and although hubby and I both went to this church following college, when they started leaning too much on the GLBT platform, hubby didn't want to go anymore. Me, I'm all for gay rights and it's a non-issue for me. (Meaning . . . I don't fixate on people's sexuality.) He said to me once "I don't like you taking our son to a church that teaches it's ok to be gay!" And my response was "But . . . it IS ok to be gay." Fundemental difference of beliefs, right in our own household.

He also asked me once what I would do if Jake told me someday he was gay. I shrugged and said "Go shopping together?" LOL. I know I've said this before, but there are a LOT worse things to hear about your child than they are gay.

I used to be very anti-gay because of ignorance. I was raised in a church that preached intolerance, I didn't know any gay people (well, the friends I had who were gay hadn't come out yet) and I was relying on small-mindedness for how I viewed people. It was a long path to where I am now, but I am SO glad I'm not that person I used to be.

There's so much more to say, but no one reads long posts. :)

[Chreamps]

Jen, yes, we do read long posts, and I applaud you for being able to change. As I get older my views on a lot of things have changed.

I have no problem with gay marriage.

[strangejen]

ok, wait . . . *I* don't read long posts. LOL. my eyes glaze over after the 3rd paragraph. :)

[NellieRose]

There's so much more to say, but no one reads long posts. :)

I do!

And I love that you shared your story. :clap

Maybe some people will earn from what you shared if they can open their minds and eyes. :shrug

Homosexuality is not a choice and people need to understand that.

[Natalie]

How hideous it would have been to tack something like this onto a document as unique and beautiful as our constitution.

:word

[Amber1279]

But marriage is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT,
I agree: marriage should be a holy covenant between one man and one woman...and it should be given back to the churches and not a decision for the GOVT. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with law & civil rights.

I agree

[strangejen]

oh man I wrote a huge long post, and it didn't go through. I don't have the energy to say it again. LOL. (Maybe THAT'S why I don't write long posts?)

[lsl_scrapper]

No, they may have been blessed by a spiritual leader, church, whatever, but the reason was still political, not religious.

My point being that arguing "the church" says marriage is this, is completely irrelevant. Historically, marriage often times had nothing to do with religion at all and everything to do with politics.


OK...I'm going to choose to bow out on this now. I totally disagree with you based on everything I've ever read about early civilization, but in the end, it really isn't all that relevant to this discussion.

The original question has been answered, and I really don't think either of us will change our minds, so further discussion, while it could be fun, is really not a good use of my time.

[Gina.Maria]

I've already made my opinion clear here, so I won't enter this discussion except to say that the candidates and their running mates are falling along party lines in their support for or against gay unions. It's my understanding that all have stated that they do not support gay marriage.

[erica922]

I am for gay marriage.

[lsl_scrapper]

Too bad the rest of the country doesn't agree. A lot of the funding for Yes on 8 in California (to change California's Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman) has come from other states, not CA. Ticks me off, they should stay out of our state constitution if they don't pay CA taxes!


Here's my problem with something like the definition of 'marriage' being decided at the state level....and maybe it isn't a problem. But if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, and then moves to a state that doesn't.....are they 'unmarried'? Like I said, I really don't know if that is a problem. what happens in other instances of marriage. Like I think some states allow marriage by younger people than others. Is they marriage recognized everywhere? I'm not arguing now.....just asking if anyone knows.

[KariHentzelt]

Live and let live, love and let love, marry and let marry.

[Tiffikat]

Live and let live, love and let love, marry and let marry.

:clap
In my opinion the world needs way more love and way less hate.

[HLWalter725]

Here's my problem with something like the definition of 'marriage' being decided at the state level....and maybe it isn't a problem. But if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, and then moves to a state that doesn't.....are they 'unmarried'? Like I said, I really don't know if that is a problem. what happens in other instances of marriage. Like I think some states allow marriage by younger people than others. Is they marriage recognized everywhere? I'm not arguing now.....just asking if anyone knows.

I don't really know the answer to this. But I would *think* you'd still be considered married, right? But I'm really not sure -- you raise an interesting point about the state to state thing.

[snaggletooth75]

I dont think anyone should be able to tell someone who they can and cant marry. People should be allowed to love and marry who they want.
As to not be stoned by people LOL I mean~ Gay people should be allowed to marry who they want. It shouldnt be up to our government to tell them they cant. Its a persons right to choose who they want to spend their life with.

[tsaria]

I just read this in my mailing (emphasis added) & it made me laugh:

Prop 8
Official Title and Summary

Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.

[JCSimon]

:lol OMG...doesn't anyone proofread these things???

Or maybe it was a Freudian slip? :D

[Miss Chris]

I dont think anyone should be able to tell someone who they can and cant marry. People should be allowed to love and marry who they want.
As to not be stoned by people LOL I mean~ Gay people should be allowed to marry who they want. It shouldnt be up to our government to tell them they cant. Its a persons right to choose who they want to spend their life with.
Yay Snaggletooth and I are on the same page!! Glad to be on the same side of the fence as you!! :)

[snaggletooth75]

LOL Im glad you agree with me on this one:lol
My husband argues with me daily on gay rights UGH:spin
He tells me im not being " true" to McCain:lol ROFL

Yay Snaggletooth and I are on the same page!! Glad to be on the same side of the fence as you!! :)

[Miss Chris]

Have you told your husband it is not your job to be true to McCain's beliefs, but rather his job to be true to yours??? That ought to keep him quiet!! Hee hee! :) :) :)

[snaggletooth75]

LMAO I should