Yea.... I'm one of those guys who kinda doesn't get it. What's the big deal? Is there some sort of legal benefit to marriage that shouldn't attach to same-sex couples? Is marriage a thing of law or a thing of religion? I guess.... bottom line, while I would not promote such a union, there's really nothing so disconcerting which would move me to oppose it.

Married 21 yrs here and I feel exactly the same. Marriage as an institution is much more threatened by adultery, abuse, drive-thru marriages and 24 hr Hollywood marriages than by letting two devoted people in love give it a go.

i couldn't have said it better myopinion-13.......I've been married 23 years. It is the union , the trust, the life you build together. that is what makes productive members of this societry.

Hey Marine...I supposed you served your country so I would have the right to oppose gay marriage...right. Geez...I've been married once, still am married, never divorced or beat my wife and I find the concept of gay marriage totally offensive. Call it something else for Gods Sake. What kind of drugs are you people doing. Yes, gay marriage does threaten the institution of marriage. Will you guys look at the history and purpose of marriage or do you just want to blather on your warm fuzzy feely good nonsense. I have got a better idea...lets just ban the entire concept of marriage and anybody that hooks up during tax season gets the same breaks. If marriage can be anything you want it to be...then why the hell do you want it. Why are you married MARINE if it is nothing, if anyone can do it what is the purpose. You do not need to be married to be in a "permanent relationship" do you. If marriage is so awful and leads to "adultery, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc." then why the hell do you want anything to do with such a corrosive institution...what...the tax breaks, you think you are having legal sex. Seriously...what is the point. You don't need to be married to have sex in order to have kids. Just what is it that marriage means to you guys...WHAT? That is a very serious question...what does it mean. It means nothing when it becomes meaningless? It has no purpose when it becomes purposeless? Do you really think it means you love your partner more if you marry her/him/whatever. Do you think it validates some silly assed contract? You do not need to get married in order to enter into any agreement with anybody. All contracts are valid when agreed to by any 2 consenting adults...just make sure the consenting adult is mentally sound enough to enter into a contract.

The entire purpose of gay marriage is to simply validate a sexual preference and mainstream a sexual lifestyle. So sorry you guys don't get it.

Thank you for the truth, and thank you for your service.

We are talking about equal rights, Jim. We aren't talking about validating anyone's sexual preferences. (And, frankly, I don't really want to know what anyone's sexual preferences might be, as it's none of my business.)

I feel that the government has absolutely no right to grant certain privilieges (such as tax breaks or social security benefits) to certain people (married people).

I am against any sort of marriage. Period. I am single and that's the way it's always going to be. But, if some (consenting adults, of course) are given a certain privilege by the government, then all (consenting adults, of course) must be given a certain privilege.

And, I get the feeling that there are a lot of closet homosexuals out there who are terrified to think that they may be unnecessarily living in a deep dark closet when in fact there is no longer a point to do so.

Greg...what equal right do you want that marriage will afford you that you cannot achieve by contract law. Taxes is about the only thing. If you will join a movement that will provide tax breaks for everybody in a committed relationship as long as they have a valid property right contract in place that protects the rights of both parties...won't that work. Probably not because you still need a societal validation.

From the New Testament:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

from Romans: Chapter 1

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

from 2 Timothy: Chapter 4

Jim-Great post. I notice in the pictures that one of the gay partners almost always want to be the other sex. You would think a civil union would be enough to guarantee health coverage and things like that. It is pathetic.

what a freak quote a 2 thousand year old book of fables try using your own brain

"When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days from his ceremonial cleansing, he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water and he will be clean. On the 8th day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest." Leviticus 15:13,14.

In all my years of going to church, I have yet to see a single male offer birds to a preacher. Seems like no one is obeying the Old Testament!

If it is just about equal rights, then I don't see the argument for gay marriage. Under the law as it stands right now, everybody, including gays, have the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. I'm straight, but if I wanted to marry some guy for whatever reason, I wouldn't have that right at this moment.

On the other hand, it doesn't harm me at all if a gay couple are able to be married. Personally, I do not believe going to a courthouse and getting "married" by a judge is actually getting married. Seems more of a civil union to me. A person gets married in a church or other place of worship. But debating that is just arguing over words, not whats important. So, if the two guys down the street want to get married to one another, I say who cares. It doesn't bother me at all. Nothing the government can do or recognize will take away what I have between my wife and I. The government could stop recognizing my marriage today and it wouldn't change anything between us. Thats why I say the government has no real power when it comes to marriage.

Jim:

"Hey Marine...I supposed you served your country so I would have the right to oppose gay marriage...right. Geez...I've been married once, still am married, never divorced or beat my wife and I find the concept of gay marriage totally offensive. Call it something else for Gods Sake."

Since you want your union to be special, why don't you call your union with your spouse something different, and the rest of us can call it marriage? Marriage is not a religious ceremony, it is a state union. Churches need to get marriage licenses from the state in order to perform the ceremony in their church. So I think the government has more a right to the word marriage than religious orders.

"What kind of drugs are you people doing. Yes, gay marriage does threaten the institution of marriage."

How so? I live in MA where gay marriage is legal, and I know a couple that is gay and married. They've happily been together for years, and they're raising a son together. He is well mannered and well above average in his schooling. His home life is much more stable than mine was at that age, and my parents are a man and a woman. My parents divorced when I was 14, my father, an alcoholic, ended up gambling away our savings, and my mom threw him out. My family life has gotten better as I've gotten older, but I wish I'd had the stability that their son has. I think my teenage years would have been a lot easier on me.

Massachusetts hasn't spontaenously combusted, we haven't been overrun by demons, our children are not running wild with no morals, and other marriages aren't invalidated by the fact that gay people can marry. They're all still married in the eyes of the state. So I don't see how it can possibly hurt the institution of marriage. Can you please explain it to me in detail what would happen to other marriages if gay people were allowed to marry?

"Will you guys look at the history and purpose of marriage or do you just want to blather on your warm fuzzy feely good nonsense."

Actually, if you look at the history of marriage, especially in Europe, a lot of marriages were done as business arragements between families. They were arranged marriages between children so that families could join as a business venture. It had nothing to do with love, or religion. Sure the church wasn't happy with arranged marriages, but they happened because marriage is a legal contract, not a religious contract. A person does not have to be religious to get married.

"I have got a better idea...lets just ban the entire concept of marriage and anybody that hooks up during tax season gets the same breaks."

Good luck getting that passed by the IRS.

"If marriage is so awful and leads to "adultery, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc." then why the hell do you want anything to do with such a corrosive institution...what...the tax breaks, you think you are having legal sex. Seriously...what is the point. You don't need to be married to have sex in order to have kids. Just what is it that marriage means to you guys...WHAT?"

Marriage means entering a contract with your spouse to create a new relationship. It's a show of devotion to the person you love and want to be with, and I don't see why you should have the right to deny someone else that opportunity. Sure, there are people out there that get married and shouldn't. There are those that get married not because they love each other, but out of convenience or out of some business agreement. But why should two people who don't love each other (like an arranged marriage between a man and a woman) have more rights than those that do love each other (like two gay women who want to be together forever)? Can you answer me that?

"That is a very serious question...what does it mean. It means nothing when it becomes meaningless? It has no purpose when it becomes purposeless? Do you really think it means you love your partner more if you marry her/him/whatever. Do you think it validates some silly assed contract?"

Then why do you feel that you should have more of a right to it than someone who is gay? Maybe someone wants to show their complete devotion to someone by entering that legal contract with them. It's an act of faith, in the sense that it's having faith in your partner that you'll be able to do everything together. It means something to many people, and you're trying to deny people the right to feel the way you did when you got married. Why is your right to get married more important than someone else's?

"You do not need to get married in order to enter into any agreement with anybody. All contracts are valid when agreed to by any 2 consenting adults...just make sure the consenting adult is mentally sound enough to enter into a contract."

Then how about you nullify your marriage? Can you live with just having a girlfriend forever, and never a wife?

"The entire purpose of gay marriage is to simply validate a sexual preference and mainstream a sexual lifestyle. So sorry you guys don't get it."

The entire purpose of gay marriage is that gay people can express love and devotion to their partners in the same way that you can. I'm sorry that you don't get that this is about giving everyone the same rights. You (and many others) may not like it, but mob mentality doesn't rule this country. That' what the Constitution is for, to protect the minority from mob rule. Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else in this country, and that includes the right to get married.

MagnolioSimms, you are my idol.

@Kaintuck

Thank you!!!!

Here is the only danger gay marriages pose to straight marriages:

All the people in "straight marriages" who aren't really straight but are just pretending to be might just decide they don't want to be in a "straight marriage" and might just be true to themselves and leave their spouses.

Other than this one issue, I really can't think of any reason why gay marraiges would threaten straight marriages.

(I am against any kind of marriage, by the way, as I could never sleep with the same person my entire life, but that's beside the point.)

MagnoliaSimms...why does marriage make your relationship any more special. It only works that way in fairy tales. Do you suppose all those divorces were caused by a marriage making the relationship any more "special". Do you suppose all of that spousal abuse happens because the 2 people getting married felt more special. It doesn't work that way and never will. By the way I never mentioned religion. Kind of makes your logic difficult if you cannot attack the comment by an anti religious screed.

Perhaps you have never entered into a contract or contract dispute. Marriage does not validate any contract with any greater sense of seriousness than one drawn up by your favorite lawyer. Just simply address the question...what is it that marriage will provide to you other than validation of your lifestyle...and if you are looking for validation of your lifestyle then there is something wrong with you. Marriage is not a tool for validation of anyone...marriage is not a "therapy session" for anyone.

Greg...Christ came down to fulfill the Old Testament. God understood man was incapable of being that obedient. The laws were not suspended...what we received is forgiveness for our sinful conduct not absolution. The Old Testament is the law...the New Testament is the mercy. As Christ told the adulterous woman "Go and sin no more". Christ never said that the admonitions against adultery written in the Old Testament were invalid and no longer carried a punitive consequence, He simply said that there is mercy and forgiveness because of the Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me. All the Old Testament laws still apply...its just that you may not be condemned to hell just because you cannot obey them. Just because we can be forgiven does not mean that it is open season to violate all of the Old Testament laws. Now you don't have to agree with them or obey them. You have been given a free will.

This headline is misleading. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT PROP 8 WILL BE OVERTURNED.

In fact, the only thing that will be overturned is Judge Walker's decision.

I am a preachers kid, and to be honest I am a man of faith. But with this being stated, I also love this country and the constitution and the freedom that has been granted to us and has been paid for by the blood of our children, parents, and grandparents.

The problem I have with this situation is that even though I am a Christian and will state that my personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong, we do live in a free society that grants one the freedom to practice their faith and personal sexual preference, and this is to be done without infringement upon them by others that feel differently then they do.

Looking at rise of religion in this country it may be a suprise to many people, but within twenty years Christianity most likely will become a minority religion and the Muslims will be the majority (have a issue with this just do a search and you will see that their are tons of info about this by independent studies). The problem with trying to subject people to our beliefs is that then when we become an minority we then would have to become subjected to the majorities beliefs. I do not know about you, but I find it hard enough to live as a christian, and the thought of living as a christian with the Muslim law being applied to me is something that I would not be willing to accept.

Because of this, we as a people need to fall back on our original founders wisdom and allow people to practice life and faith with the same freedoms that we demand ourselves. As much as we do not wish to live under Muslim law, neither do people that are in same sex relationships wish to live under our definition of what we feel is morally right or wrong. In the end we need to support their right to live their life with the same freedoms that we demand for ourselves, and this means without harassment. But we do have the right to demand that if we are required to accept this then they are also required to respect our freedom to disagree.

@Jim-736496

You are the one who "doesn't get it".

Jim:

"MagnoliaSimms...why does marriage make your relationship any more special. It only works that way in fairy tales."

Then why did you get married? Why did you take the next step in your relationship? If it means nothing in the progression of a relationship, why does it exist? And why are you placing so much value on it if it doesn't make your relationship any more special than it was when you weren't married?

Marriage has a lot more meaning to some than just entering a legal contract. It's the next step in a serious commitment to the person they love. Why can you take that step, but someone else can't? And like I said, if you want that step in your relationship to be called something special as opposed to marriage, how about we'll call heterosexual marriages "civil unions" and everything else will be marriage.

Does that work for you?

"Do you suppose all those divorces were caused by a marriage making the relationship any more "special". Do you suppose all of that spousal abuse happens because the 2 people getting married felt more special."

Getting married has nothing to do with spousal abuse. Spousal abuse is a problem with the person that is committing the act, and whether married or not, that person will have abusive tendencies.

As for divorces, that's just some people's reasoning behind why the institution of marriage isn't what it used to be. Divorce is a lot more common than it used to be, but I think that has a lot to do with people having free choice than say 100 years ago. There are many reasons for divorce, from minor to major. I don't see how it has to do with anything I said. I never mentioned spousal abuse or divorce. People have said these are more serious threats to the institution of marriage than gay marriage, but that wasn't my point at all.

"It doesn't work that way and never will. By the way I never mentioned religion. Kind of makes your logic difficult if you cannot attack the comment by an anti religious screed."

I know you never mentioned religion. But my argument stands. Why should you have a right to do something and someone else doesn't? Whether you bring religion into it or not, it's all about a person's rights. I should have the same rights as you, as well as a gay person. We should all have the same rights, and one of those rights is the right to get married.

"Perhaps you have never entered into a contract or contract dispute. Marriage does not validate any contract with any greater sense of seriousness than one drawn up by your favorite lawyer. Just simply address the question...what is it that marriage will provide to you other than validation of your lifestyle...and if you are looking for validation of your lifestyle then there is something wrong with you. Marriage is not a tool for validation of anyone...marriage is not a "therapy session" for anyone."

And again, I'll pose the question to you. If that's all marriage is to you, why did you do it? Perhaps it means nothing but a contract to you, but it means something to others. And if you're so cavalier about marriage, why are you protective of it?

I don't need validation of my lifestyle, and even if I were gay, I still wouldn't need it. This isn't about "validating" anything. It's about someone having the same rights as you and I do. If you and I have the right to marry someone that we love (or hate for that matter), gay people should have that same right.

I am wondering if marriage is indeed their priority then why don't the Gays and Lesbians go to those States where it has been previously passed to get married? The opportunity already exists in those places. Another overriding agenda appears to be at work.

Big deal!

Second that... why should gays have to live in another state in order to get their FEDERAL rights? Is that the goal of the Prop 8 supporters: to segregate the gays and lesbians into gay friendly states and not be able to enjoy their rights in the rest of the U.S.?

Sounds to me like a modern-day "separate but equal."

Yes, when will I be able to marry my dog?

MagnoliaSimms...you will not like this but the purpose behind marriage as it currently exists was to protect the children financially and to protect the spouse that raised the children from financial harm if the spouses spouse is such a louse that they run off with the mouse. Try and get alimony and child support if you never got married to begin with. Won't happen. And because no children will result from a gay marriage there will never be a need for child support. Oh...adoption...gimme a break. And the notion of alimony is gone forever.

Second That...the overiding agenda is to mainstream the gay lifestyle in a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture. Kinda like building a mosque next to ground zero. A sharp stick in the eye. There is no reason for gay marriage except to try to validate their sexual prferences and lifestyle.

Your dog has a social security number and can sign a marriage contract? WOW!

That stupid state spends millions on illegals, and it costs them nothing for gays to marry.

Second that:

"I am wondering if marriage is indeed their priority then why don't the Gays and Lesbians go to those States where it has been previously passed to get married? The opportunity already exists in those places. Another overriding agenda appears to be at work."

Because in most states where gay marriage is not legal, their marriage is not recognized. If someone gets married in Massachusetts, it should be recognized everywhere. If my marriage is recognized across the country, then everyone's should. Plus, someone shouldn't have to travel across the country to get married. They should be able to do it in their hometown with their loved ones if they choose.

Oh...adoption...gimme a break.

I think you only want a break because it's a major HOLE in your piss poor excuse case against gay marriage. Lots of straight couples adopt, are you saying their kids are less legitimate? Lots of straight couples use test tube babies for various reasons, are you saying their kids are less legitimate?

Get your ass in the 21st century. I'd rather have a loving gay couple raise adopted children to be successful adults than some abusive heterosexual "married couple" with histories of domestic violence raise some scum-@!$%# criminals - not through any fault of his own, but through his parents.

purpose behind marriage as it currently exists was to protect the children financially and to protect the spouse that raised the children from financial harm if the spouses spouse is such a louse that they run off with the mouse

First, were you high when you wrote that louse/mouse nonsense?

Second, it's always about the children isn't it... I can't see how straight 55-hour-just-for-fun marriages as well as 'doomed' marriages that only happened out of wedlock and not love are good for children. What about infertile couples, why the hell should they marry but not gays adopting a kid?

You want to start legistating one-child laws, which by that I mean one child MINIMUM?

Get your ass in the 21st century. Marriage is never about "the children" that's just a lie you bible thumpers tell yourself to keep your high horse stance. It was always about the couple being married.

"I am wondering if marriage is indeed their priority then why don't the Gays and Lesbians go to those States where it has been previously passed to get married? The opportunity already exists in those places. Another overriding agenda appears to be at work."

Because in most states where gay marriage is not legal, their marriage is not recognized

So the conclusion is that the gay people should move to and live in the states where gay marriage is acceptable.

Jim:

"MagnoliaSimms...you will not like this but the purpose behind marriage as it currently exists was to protect the children financially and to protect the spouse that raised the children from financial harm if the spouses spouse is such a louse that they run off with the mouse."

If we want to go by history, marriage was supposedly established so that a father would have the assurance of paternity of his children. But are we really going to establish the meaning of marriage based on ancient tradition? If so, how far back are we going to go? Of course, back in the Middle Ages, the state didn't need to be involved in marriages. Or do we go back to the late 1800s in Europe when only the church could marry someone?

Using outdated reasons for marriage is a lousy excuse to deny gay people the right. People get married now without the need to have children, yet they still have the right to do so.

"Try and get alimony and child support if you never got married to begin with. Won't happen. And because no children will result from a gay marriage there will never be a need for child support. Oh...adoption...gimme a break. And the notion of alimony is gone forever."

So what? The gay couple I know didn't adopt, they had a child through artificial insemination. So he is related to one of them. Yet he's been adopted by her spouse, so there is a legal obligation by both of them to raise their son. If they separated, both of them would be legally obligated to the welfare of their son.

Again, I don't see what any of this has to do with not allowing gays to get married. I don't plan on ever having children, and that's a personal choice, but my boyfriend and I eventually would like to get married. Should we not be allowed to either since no children will be born into our family? Should the desire to have children be what determines marriage now?

Blackbelt Marine,

You are so right. The hypocricy from the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage people is amazing but not surprising.

Regarding children

No matter how you want to discuss it, the fact of the matter remains that neither two men nor two women can naturally create a baby.

Because we have the 'TECHNICAL MEANS' by which to create babies in test tubes DOES NOT GIVE CAUSE to change the nature of parenthood from one man and one woman to two people of the same sex. PERIOD.

Karen:

"So the conclusion is that the gay people should move to and live in the states where gay marriage is acceptable."

Why should they have to move? You have the right to get married wherever you want, so why should gay people not have that same right?

Karen, we also have the technical means to cure certain diseases. Would you also say that this "DOES NOT GIVE CAUSE" to change the nature of illness/death?

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't this the 21st century?

Hey kevin go have a baby...if you can do that then I will not oppose your marriage. For lesbians the only way you can have a baby is to milk a sperm donor and women aint got any. Don't tell me your lifestyle choices are about procreation. You cannot do it and never will do it unless you do something you're averse to doing. Get used to it...that is biology...that ticking sound is your biological clock running out of time for you to change your minds.

So the conclusion is that the gay people should move to and live in the states where gay marriage is acceptable.

Marriage rights aren't dictated by the state. Marriage rights are dictated by the federal government.

Sorry dear, but we don't live in 1950's America anymore. We are all Americans and shouldn't have to live in different parts of the country due to our sexual preference, religion, race, etc.

Perhaps you are the one who should get out of the U.S. if you don't believe that we are all created equal.

Hey Jim and Karen, why have neither of you mentioned the fact that some couples are sterile and can't have children naturally? Should they be denied marriage rights because of their inability to biologically produce children?

Your baseless argument that "it's all about the children" will never hold up in a court of law.

Dumb @!$%#s... you know that if I had XXY syndrome I wouldn't be able to have a baby despite being a heterosexual guy.

Does that make me suddenly unable to marry?

Now not only must we submit chromosomal proof that we are a man and woman, we must also undergo rigorous "fitness" tests designed to assess how likely we are to have children. Finally, there is the one-child law (one child minimum, that is) that we must follow or we face having our marriage dissolved and being imprisoned for perjury.

Sound much like some sort of Nazi regime there?

The "institution of marriage", as established in our society, recognizes the union of a man and a woman. If it is at odds with our constitution then it has to change.

"The entire purpose of gay marriage is to simply validate a sexual preference and mainstream a sexual lifestyle. So sorry you guys don't get it."

Nice rant but your argument makes absolutely no sense. Gay marriage shouldn't exist because you find it offensive?

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then all marriages that have not produced offspring after x number of years should be dissolved.

The institution of marriage also used to only recognize same-race couples 'as established in society.' Just because something's been 'established in society' such as Anti-Semitism, Racism, Slavery, Sexism, etc. doesn't make it right.

If society is wrong, then society's what's gotta change.

This headline is misleading. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT PROP 8 WILL BE OVERTURNED.

In fact, the only thing that will be overturned is Judge Walker's decision.

Karen in Los Angeles, I never seem to see your posts on anything but gay issues, especially when pertaining to California. If you hate California so much, why do you stay there? I'm certainly looking forward to the day when your posts start coming from Karen in Glennbeckistan!

Kevin,

Give us all a break, that same tagline "you were probably against blacks and whites marrying back in the 60's" is so old, untrue and tired. Such a liberal tactic to shout "RACISM!" if nothing else works. You are putting apples up against oranges because race and sexuality have no correlation in this forum and probably never did as far as this argument is concerned.

Riley, discrimination is discrimination, regardless if the discriminated party is blacks, gays, whites, etc.

Yes, gays ARE going through the same thing as blacks did in the 60's. Telling gay people to live in the several states where gay marriages are recognized is the same thing as telling them they are separate but equal. The separate but equal policy in the south was ruled unconstitutional, but it should be preserved when its directed towards gays?

Last time I checked, the gays in this country are American citizens who contribute to society and pay taxes. They should be able to enjoy their FULL rights as U.S. citizens throughout the U.S.! Not just in five states.

Preach it apfluxx! This has been going through my mind the whole time I've been reading all these posts.

Well said, apfluxx.

Did I miss it? Did Jim ever say why he married? And if he did, was he able to explain why it is OK for him to marry but not OK for others? Is Jim really so afraid his wife will leave him for another woman?

There is no reason to deny gay marriage except for straights to try to validate their sexual preferences and lifestyle.

The thing you guys are failing to realize is that marriage was not started as a FEDERALLY regulated activity. It started in Society. Marriage is not a RIGHT that the government can or should mandate for whatever tax breaks. IF this is about being able to show love and affection as Magnolia Simms suggests, then do it and stop trying to change laws. Leave the government out. I am married. I am a minister, and contrary to many of your opinions, I DO NOT HATE people that are choosing the homosexual lifestyle. I would still want to keep marriage between one man and one woman regardless of tax benefits. Shoot, why don't we repeal the federally regulated and mandated marriage laws altogether, then we won't have to have all this uproar over "Its my right." Ok, then find someone who will perform a ceremony that you prefer and take care of it. Hope you guys find something better to do then cut each other down.

Sam:

"The thing you guys are failing to realize is that marriage was not started as a FEDERALLY regulated activity. It started in Society. Marriage is not a RIGHT that the government can or should mandate for whatever tax breaks."

That used to be the case way back in history, but that's not the case anymore. Someone can't just go down the street, have a ceremony and be married. There are legal ramifications in today's society. Like if a gay woman's spouse is hospitalized, she wouldn't be allowed in the room because of certain laws, since only spouses and immediate family are allowed access. Also, in terms of things like health insurance (where only a spouse and dependents can be covered), etc. Marriage may not have started with legal ramifications, but it has them now. The government is involved in marriage in this day and age with certificates from the state and tax status, so laws need to change.

"IF this is about being able to show love and affection as Magnolia Simms suggests, then do it and stop trying to change laws. Leave the government out."

If the government wasn't involved (like with issuing marriage certificates), that wouldn't be a problem. But the problem is, the government IS involved.

"I am married. I am a minister, and contrary to many of your opinions, I DO NOT HATE people that are choosing the homosexual lifestyle."

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you didn't choose to like women. Did you learn that, or was that desire naturally there? Because I sure didn't learn to be attracted to men. I've just always been that way. But that's not the point of this debate. Whether by choice or by nature, they should still have the same rights as you and me.

"I would still want to keep marriage between one man and one woman regardless of tax benefits."

To be honest, what you want doesn't really matter because you're not being denied anything. You can get married. What if someone told you that you couldn't because of something you couldn't control? Would you be mad? I would be.

"Shoot, why don't we repeal the federally regulated and mandated marriage laws altogether, then we won't have to have all this uproar over "Its my right." Ok, then find someone who will perform a ceremony that you prefer and take care of it. Hope you guys find something better to do then cut each other down."

Until that day, this debate will continue. As long as the government is involved with marriages, everyone should have the right to get married, whether to a man or a woman. Because under our government, everyone should have the same rights. As someone said before, separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Kevin.... has it right: "If society is wrong, then society's what's gotta change." The examples he gives are a testament to the wrongs we have addressed and attempted to correct. The issue of same-sex marriage may well be another such example.

Kaintuck - not sure I agree with all the ancient books, but "reprobate mind" does describe the gay/lesbian community.

Do you obey the Ten Commandments? If you do then you are following the Old Testament. Does your Church have an alter? Then you and you church are following the OldTestament. It is a pity that there are people who really believe that the Old Testament doesn't count for without it there wouldn't be a new Testament,

Marriage rights aren't dictated by the state. Marriage rights are dictated by the federal government.

This statement is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. A month or so ago, MA District Court held that marriage is a right determined by the state when they gave gay couples federal benefits or something.

The situation is that MA agrees with gay marriage and the federal judge said it is the state's right to decide the definition of marriage in its state. Since MA agrees with gay marriage, the feds had to comply in that state.

Whoever compared curing disease to creating a child in a test tube IS FREAKING CRAZY.

Think about what you said. I laid it out simply for you.

Like if a gay woman's [partner] is hospitalized, she wouldn't be allowed in the room because of certain laws, since only spouses and immediate family are allowed access.

That is why you need to draft a power of attorney and other legal instruments to take care of this situation. You do not need to be married to finalize a power of attorney.

1) Gays should not have to make the lawyer the first stop if their partner were hospitalized in a freak accident. I know I would never do that. By the time all the legal bull@!$%# was done your partner might just have died.

But I bet the selfish @!$%#s like you guys on your high horses haven't thought of that, have you Jim + Karen? Shows the true bigotry that fuels this selfish, self-validating "anti-gay" belief - you have absolutely no consideration for others!

2) Well said Magnolia Simms. The point is that so long as government gives benefits and even MENTIONS marriage in its books, so marriage is a constitutional right between consenting adults.

3) Children play no part in this. Gay couples and straight couples who are infertile can adopt children. They raise them just like normal children. I'd welcome more adoptions, as it also relieves burdens placed on foster care in some areas - I would definitely not say that adoption is not a "legitimate" way of having a kid.

This isn't the backwards society where we want to legislate a one-child-minimum law and have multiple DNA testing to make sure that child is the true pure biological offspring of the parents - oh, the horrors if she weren't!

Gays should not have to make the lawyer the first stop if their partner were hospitalized in a freak accident. I know I would never do that. By the time all the legal bull@!$%# was done your partner might just have died.

Excuse me - you're just whining. GET YOUR POWER OF ATTORNEY NOW IF YOU ARE SERIOUS about taking care of this person in sickness and health. I have one for my mother.

There is NO GUARANTEE that Prop 8 will be overturned. Get your legal paperwork in order NOW while there are no issues - kind of like how I have my earthquake kit ready at all times IN CASE OF AN EARTHQUAKE.

Pretend that the power of attorney and other papers are a marriage license. There is a solution to many of the issues. But no, gay people want to whine and want others to validate their lifestyle.

Free will sucks but God granted it because we wanted it. Dogs lick their balls because they can.

@Karen

Do you have your legal paperwork in order so you can see your partner or sign documents? Does it mean the same to YOU calling him your partner and not husband? Will you give up your legal rights you have with him automatically? Why don't you go pay a lawyer to give you the federal and state rights that others have simply because you are recognized in the government's eyes? Will you give up your right to his insurance or him to your insurance? Will you give up your tax rights? Will you give up your rights to children that he has? Do you choose to love your husband instead of a woman? Does he choose to love you instead of a man?

I submit that your answers, if you really had to answer them in REAL LIFE, would be a resounding: "NO! Those are my rights after all..." If you answered yes, then get it done...you can preach what you do then... If you answer is no, then back off when others are fighting for rights that you already have. Also, look up common law marriage, then tell me how easy it is to get rights without a ceremony for people who happen to be straight.

This statement is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. A month or so ago, MA District Court held that marriage is a right determined by the state when they gave gay couples federal benefits or something.

The institution of marriage guarantees over a thousand federal rights to spouses, and the federal government only recognizes straight marriages. It shouldn't be left up to the states to decide if gay and lesbian couples can marry; that's discrimination in my book. The federal government needs to recognize the rights of all of its citizens.

But no, gay people want to whine and want others to validate their lifestyle.

Isn't that what the Prop 8 supporters are doing? Whining about something for years that does not affect them at all?

Nobody's lifestyle is dictated by their sexual preference, so I don't understand this myth about the "gay lifestyle." Is there a straight lifestyle?

All that homosexuals are asking for is equality. But so-called Americans like yourself support putting in all of this time, effort, and money into passing laws that require discrimination against your fellow Americans for the sake of protecting a "tradition" that has already been destroyed by YOUR people. And despite all of this time and energy that is being spent to discriminate against others, you people do nothing to try and protect your OWN marriages.

Why are you people so miserable with your lives that you feel that you should do everything in your power to destroy the happiness of others?

Your beliefs are the real harm to society.

Aren't Marriage Rights more similar to Gun Rights than Civil Rights? You can get a concealed carry permit from Utah. Folks apply for them nationwide too. How is a marriage license from a blue state any different?

God created free will so that we could choice what we wanted for ourselves. Who gives any one the right to take free will and choice from another person or persons? Nobody, not even the law.

Second that... you apparently don't understand the concept of equality. Some gays and lesbians don't want to get married, just like some straight people don't want to get married. But they want to have that equal opportunity.

It is discrimination and a violation of civil rights for the government to say that one set of people deserves these rights, but another group doesn't.

I think many people are just afraid that they are going to have to buy wedding gifts for a lot more people if gays can get married.

And, it's true that there is no way anyone is going to get away with giving a gay couple a $14.99 toaster from Walmart as a wedding present.

Ok....now THAT'S funny Greg! I'm YET to meet a gay guy that doesn't have great taste!

The bottom line is that Californians DO NOT AGREE TO GAY MARRIAGE.

If that person is so concerned about taking care of his gay lover, then he can get a power of attorney.

To the person asking me millions of questions - do you read English? I already discussed the answer to your question.

Hey Karen,

The bottom line is that no one has the right, according to our constitution, to take away rights or ban rights from American citizens.

As far as your assertion that a POA is good enough is wrong. Wills can be contested. POA's can be contested. "Judicial Activists" have overturned wills, POA, DPOAS, MPOAS, and given them to "family" defined as blood relatives OR spouses i.e. MARRIED. Domestic Partnerships don't cover all the Federal Law. I'm sorry that the truth is inconvenient for you and doesn't jive with your hatred.

@KareninLA: I do not know your views on gay marriage, but I see you say:

The bottom line is that Californians DO NOT AGREE TO GAY MARRIAGE

They do not have to agree. It is not their place to decide who can and who cannoit get married for the following reason:

God doesn't make a mistake and everything He does is for a reason.

He tells us His main reason very early in the Bible (Deuteronomy 30) the He gives us a choice:

Life or death; blessings or curses

He then tells us to:

CHOOSE LIFE!

Knowing this, we also know that we are to love Him with all we have, obey him, and keep Him close to us.

So when it comes to obeying him and keeping Him close, we have to turn to the Bible for answers. Below is what is found in the bible for the meaning of:

Leviticus 18:22 and Levitcus 20:12: They say man should not lie down with man as he would a woman. The meaning of this is illustrated in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. These make it quite clear that He is taking about male anal intercourse for the purposed of humiliation, subjection, and revenge.

Genesis 19:4-5

They (Lot and the two Angels) had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old- all the people to the last man - gathered about the house.

and they shouted to Lot and said to him, "Where are the two men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.

Judges 19:22

While they were enjoting themselves, the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathered about the house and were pounding on the door. They called out to the aged owner of the house,

"Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can be intimate with him."

God doesn't make a mistake. The above scriptures show that He is talking about violent sex, rape, and pedophilia, not loving relationships.

He doesn't make a mistake and doesn't want us to either. Being a wise Father, he leaves the choice to us, the individual. Only to the individual. He doesn't ask the government, the courts, or the people to make the choice for the individual.

The choice is up to the individual and him/her alone. I aks all of you: What do you choose; Life or Death, blessings or curses?

Karen- you are my source of entertainment on this website. Thank you.

I am so reminded of Mayor Newsom's statement that we were all going to be converted like it or not. This attitude strikes me as being the same as the Muslim extremists wanting to convert us infidels. Not a lot of middle ground to work with.

The bottom line is that Californians DO NOT AGREE TO GAY MARRIAGE.

The bottom line is it does not matter what Califronians agree to if it is deemed unconstitutional.

If that person is so concerned about taking care of his gay lover, then he can get a power of attorney

There is much more to a marraige and its associated rights than just care. Some of the rights cannot be obtained in any other manner such as 5th Amendment protections. But I shouldn't expect a paralegal to know this.

Karen in Los Angeles:

"The bottom line is that Californians DO NOT AGREE TO GAY MARRIAGE."

Actually, the bottom line is it doesn't matter what Californians want. That's why we have the Constitution, to protect the rights of the minority from mob rule. Majority does not rule in this case. Everyone should have the same rights.

Friendly reminder.

The CA Supreme Court already called our constititional amendment - CONSTITUTIONAL.

The feds have no business getting involved in marriage as per the US CONSTITUTION as set forth in a recent MA District Court ruling.

Therefore, GAY Judge Walker, who had an agenda and an apparent ax to grind, HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER, and thus, his ruling is suspect.

There is absolutely no comparison to being black to being gay.

We Californians have a right to define marriage and I could care less if you agree with us our not. Prop 8 will ultimately be upheld by the US Supreme Court if it even gets there.

If you think the US Supreme Court will agree to gay marriage, think again. A MERE 5 STATES THAT REPRESENT LESS THAN 5% of the entire population agree on gay marriage.

If you believe otherwise, send me an email. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I need to unload.

The CA Supreme Court already called our constititional amendment - CONSTITUTIONAL.

Wrong again Karen (I really need to create a keystroke shortcut for that I use it so often). They ruled the ballot initiative was an Amendment and not a Change to the the California Constitution. The court case challenge Prop 8 as being an Amendment, they did not rule on the Constitutionality. How sad, I know more about your Stae and what goes on there than you.

The feds have no business getting involved in marriage as per the US CONSTITUTION as set forth in a recent MA District Court ruling.

So you agree that DOMA is un constitutional?

Therefore, GAY Judge Walker, who had an agenda and an apparent ax to grind, HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER, and thus, his ruling is suspect.

What ax did this conservative judge have to grind and what was his agenda? His agneda was to do his job and the ax he used was the US Constitution. Not his jurisdiction, who do you think is supposed to rule on cases challenging the validity of laws?

There is absolutely no comparison to being black to being gay.

Your right, homosexuals are not looked down upon and treated like sub-humsn creatures by some people like the blacks were.

I will finish this circus called Karens post in a minute

We Californians have a right to define marriage

As long as the way in which you define it remains constitutional then you do.

. Prop 8 will ultimately be upheld by the US Supreme Court if it even gets there.

What do you base this opinion on? Case precedence would be nice, after all isn't that your job, searching for relevant case precedence. Ideologically the court is split 4-4 and it is widdely believed the swing vote will be in favor of gay-marriage. Not to mention that whole Scalia thing where he might have painted himself in a corner with Lawrence vs. Texas.

A MERE 5 STATES THAT REPRESENT LESS THAN 5% of the entire population agree on gay marriage.

5 States does not equate to 5% of the population, 5% of the Staes but not 5% of the population. It could be bigger it could be smaller but that is really irrelevant since your whole statement is logically flawed in the first place.

Only one state could have gay-marriage and the percentage in favor of gay-marriage could be above 50% across the US as a whole. Oh wait it already is that way except there are 5 States plus DC.

If you believe otherwise, send me an email. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I need to unload.

I have land in the Everglades, how about an even trade.

Wow, Karen's blind guess was pretty close but it is slightly higher not lower as she guessed it would be, 5.06% but this figure includes the population of all territories as well. If we remove those it would go even higher.

I guess it is true that even a blind squirrel when get a nut every now and then.

It was NOT a blind guess (the number of states and the corresponding population percentage). I actually verify information before posting. Just yesterday, I read an opinion in the LA Times that verified my percentages.

Which is the reason why I will be proven correct again (as I have been all along).

And dude, I will not engage in discussions with people who do not verify their information before posting. It is CLEAR you are not an attorney or legal professional, so I'm not wasting my time. I help Andy Pugno instead.

Karen:

You get your facts from opinion columns? That seems contradictory.

"The CA Supreme Court already called our constititional amendment - CONSTITUTIONAL."

That's funny, because it has the same wording as Proposition 22, which as a statute, was struck down by the CA Supreme Court in May 2008 as being contradictory to the Constitution. And Just An Observation is correct in stating that the vote in May of 2009, it was only stated that Proposition 8 was not a revision to the state constitution and could be placed before voters on the ballot as an amendment. It said nothing about the actual constitutionality of the proposition.

"The feds have no business getting involved in marriage as per the US CONSTITUTION as set forth in a recent MA District Court ruling."

It's still within the state, but if it can't be resolved at the state level, the next logical step is federal.

"Therefore, GAY Judge Walker, who had an agenda and an apparent ax to grind, HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER, and thus, his ruling is suspect."

He did this job. He reviewed the proposition, and because it is of questionable constitutionality, he placed a stay on it until it can be ruled upon. I don't see anything about having an ax to grind.

"There is absolutely no comparison to being black to being gay."

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it's about gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. Interracial marriage was forbidden in our society at one point as well, and blacks were looked down upon by the rest of society, just like gays are today. It's pretty much the same thing.

"We Californians have a right to define marriage and I could care less if you agree with us our not. Prop 8 will ultimately be upheld by the US Supreme Court if it even gets there."

You're right, it doesn't matter if we agree with you or not, but what does matter is if your definition of marriage infringes on the rights of someone else. Because majority doesn't rule here. The second the majority's opinions infringe on the rights of a single person, the majority's opinion will be thrown out.

"If you think the US Supreme Court will agree to gay marriage, think again. A MERE 5 STATES THAT REPRESENT LESS THAN 5% of the entire population agree on gay marriage."

Actually, only 5 states have passed legislation that allows gay marriage, but that doesn't mean only 5% of the population agrees with it. It just means that we've caught up with the changes in society. And I'm glad to live in a state that allows it. Because what the heck does it have to do with me in the long run? Does it hurt me? Does it hurt the state?

"If you believe otherwise, send me an email. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I need to unload."

And I have an invitation for you... it's to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

And dude, I will not engage in discussions with people who do not verify their information before posting. It is CLEAR you are not an attorney or legal professional, so I'm not wasting my time. I help Andy Pugno instead.

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah. This is what you always say when you are loosing a debate and are about to disappear from the discussion. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Nah, nah, nah, I caaaaaaan't hear youuuuuuuuuu" does not do anything for your credibility, not that you had any to begin with.

5% of the States that just so happens to be a little over 5% of the population, including all territories, does not equate to 95% of the population being against same-sex marriage. Who in the hell taught you logic? That person needs to have his/her teaching licence revoked.

Noticed you did not mention your "The CA Supreme Court already called our constititional[sic] amendment - CONSTITUTIONAL" statement. Was it because you were in fact WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!

(Sorry for the caps everyone, but that seems the only way in which Karen knows how to communicate, the wannabe legal professional)

FYI- Karen being a paralegal does not make you a legal professional, it makes you a goferfor legal professionals. Just because one works in a particular field does not mean one is a professional in that field.

So, take some advice and quit arguing legal matters in which you have continuously demonstrated a lack of understanding or knowledge.

don't bet on it!

Hey hampster...sure looks like a liberal federal appeals court, the 9th circuit, sure did listen to our prayers.

Hey Jim...sure looks like they're following the standard of keeping challenged laws active till they rule on them. Didn't they also state the defendents have to prove they have legal standing to even appeal? Hmmm...could end right there with Prop 8 overturned.

Hampster....those "Bible thumpers" you're referring to aren't really Bible thumpers at all. If they were, they wouldn't be giving us devout followers of Christ a bad name. A true believer in Christ stands firm in what we believe to be right but also ACCEPTS, LOVES and HELPS our neighbors. (being who we are able to help) That does NOT include sending money to other countries rather than noticing the struggling family down the street and secretly leaving groceries on their front porch. If we all looked a little closer to the ones around us we'd be in a much better place. They're too busy judging others and preaching down their necks. Salvation is about forgiveness. It's about understanding that we are beneath God and not worthy of his presence without purification. God is Holy and FAR superior to any of us. The ONLY sinless man that walked this earth was Christ......that's why he takes our sin so we can be with God. That is NOT exclusive to straight people. It's for EVERYONE!!!!!!!! I wish the so called Christians would STOP!!!

California is bankrupt for one reason only. LIBERALS

Precisely, California is bankrupt because of bad decisions that don't take into account the common good. California's liberalism introduces program after program that supports the so-called minority groups and other ridiculous programs. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge multi-million dollar study and activity to drape suicide nets under the bridge. While it is admirable to help prevent suicide related deaths of jumpers, the fact is the cost is way out of line and more importantly, that money could be better spent on counseling services for those who would consider suicide.

What does that have to do with this? Well, it is just another example of how California has lost focus on what is truly important. Protecting marriage is incredibly important, and not just for marriage itself. If another time tested institution that promotes solid family and societal value is erased from our heritage and history then society will continue its downward trend.

Pondering: I think the best way to protect the time tested instutuion of marriage is to outlaw divorce! You straight folks do no justice to the institution of marriage when almost 50% of marriages fail. Now thats a real statistic to be proud of!

Boston - you are right about that. Divorce should have penalties associated with it. Making it illegal may not be the best option, but certainly there should be stronger focus on; first - bringing morality and consequence back into the personal ownership area and establishing marriages that will last (rather than just, I want to do it for the sake of doing it), second - enhancing morality and the image of marriage to what it was originally and convince Hollywood to stop glamorizing divorce and non-family values, and third; bring morality back to divorce and helping people to solve there marital differences rather than just treating it like a piece of Ikea furniture that one can buy up front and then trade it in or replace it later when they find something 'better'.

I wanted to post to applaud Pondering. I'd reach my hand across this fence to shake your hand.

I myself believe Prop 8 is unconstitutional. But I have grown tired of listening to rants from Jim736496, Karen in Los Angeles & their ilk. You, Pondering, have shown opposition WITH ANSWERS. You have shown opposition without casting judgement or calling into question everything that is not of your world. That is vastly more than we can say about the majority of those on your side of the fence. To dogmatically assert over & over again that something is wrong because their favorite fairytale book says so, is asinine. Where is the original thought?? Where is the research?? Where is the legal precedence??

In this country, any law that is remotely controversial is eventually challenged in the courts. Therefore to really get any law to stick, it has got to have major legal precedence backing it up. So why was the sound of crickets heard when Prop 8 supporters were asked in court, "Where is the harm?" BECAUSE...

Fear & prejudice have no legal precedence.

California is bankrupt for one reason only.

Correct. His name is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Boy, what a lot of insecure people! Tend to your own marriages, and the others will take care of theirs.

Prop 8 will go down, one way or another.

What's an ilk? If I am going to be described as one, I'd like to know.

And by the way, I have always posted WHY I disagree with gay marriage. It's not my fault if you don't read it, but you certainly should not claim that I do not state my position.

Who do you think you are anyway? And what makes you so smart to say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional - because a GAY judge said so? How about the CA Supreme Court who said PROP 8 IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

How about the CA Supreme Court who said PROP 8 IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

They never said that.

Karen you've made it quite clear that you think homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals. You have an obvious prejudice.

California is bankrupt right now because Schwarzenegger refused to make the difficult decisions about our economy when he still had time to make a change. Instead he pandered to his special interests and drove California into the ground. That anyone could have ever thought in any possible stretch of the imagination that this guy could be presidential material is ludicrous.

Well Karen is Los Angeles, Janeinthis world already contested your most ignorant comment #4.8. CA Supreme Court DID NOT content Prop 8 was constituional, they are running on the long known precedent that a law remains enacted while being challenged. NO WHERE in their statement for a stay on Prop 8, did they say it WAS constitutional.

Second, yes you do state your position. But then never offer anything other, "THEY'RE INFERIOR, NO RIGHT FOR YOU". That's not a position that any court of law will respect. As i stated above & you still can not argue lawfully against, FEAR & PREJUDICE HAVE NO LEGAL PRECEDENCE.

Thirdly, ilk means to be of the same class, kind or family. The fact that you couldn't do a simple internet search to look up a word says volumes about how close minded you must be on everything else. If you opened your mind to this debate, you'd realize it doesn't have A GOD DAMN THING to do with you & your fellow bigots.

AND FOURTH, because newsvine cut me off editting my comment, you have more than once contested that this judge is gay. 1. The judge has never stated such a thing, BUT was branded to be gay as soon as he ruled against Prop 8. Seems like typical tactics of bigots to label those that don't agree as your enemy & attempt to discredit what they do. 2. Even if the judge is, your point in posturing such nonsense more than once?? Are you contesting that a gay judge can not rule on anything contending gay rights?? Or a straight judge on straights rights?? Or, to really drive home that your point is COMPLETELY irrelevant, a black judge on blacks rights?? Or a white judge on whites, or women judge on womens rights & so on & so on. Unless you can prove that he acted without legal precedent & freely on his will, you can't do a thing about it. & in case you missed it, the judge issued ONE HUNDRED & THIRTY PAGES of legal precedent as to why, FEAR & PREJUDICE HAVE NO LEGAL PRECEDENCE.

The judge has never stated such a thing, BUT was branded to be gay as soon as he ruled against Prop 8.

In all fairness Illuminati, it came out that the judge was gay before the trial even began. If they felt it was an issue, the defence should of petitioned to have him recused from the case.

It is a little late to by crying "conflict of interest" when the question of possible conflict was known beforehand.

Are there any known asexual agnostic Judges in California?

Tell me why you need to be married...tell me what marriage will accomplish, other than validating your lifestyle, that cannot be accomplished by having a law school student write up some simple contracts. If it is the tax breaks I would be willing to support anybody cohabitating that have entered into property rights contracts with each other, to receive the same tax breaks that marriage affords. Otherwise can you please tell me why you need "marriage" other than some self validation?

Jim, so YOU tell us:

1. How does it affect you if same sex couples marry?

2. Why are you for marriage (a religious concept) if couples are atheist?

3. Why can same sex couples not have that validation when many churches now will finally accept them too?

BTW do you actually know any same sex couples?

LA...where did I say it is some religious concept, did I say that..of so WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY IT. Do you guys always go off into some anti religious screed when you can't answer a simple question. Is that the way you avoid conflict is some anti religious screed. You gotta be a little bit smarter than that.

By the way, yes I know both lesbian and homosexual couples. Some of them belive their lifestyle is an absolute choice not a birth right. Some want you to get off of this gay marriage crap as well. But you won't believe that because it does not fit your agenda...does it.

If you quit being so angry, you would have understood I said marriage is a religious concept not you.

BTW YOU are the one who hasn't answered any questions posed of you.

It's because Jim doesn't have any valid argument to say at all, that's why he couldn't answer the questions you psed on him.

I could care less if you think marriage is some sort of religious concept or not. My question was simply why do you need to get married...is it for some sort of validation? How difficult of a question is that to answer? You answer my question I posed and then I will answer yours. My question is why do you need to get married if there are other options. "Because I want to" is not an answer.

I am heterosexual and happily married for 27 years. Why I chose to get married is simply because it was the (1) manifestation of ones commitment to each other (2) socially dictated thing to do if you are going to have children (3) economically speaking it was the only method to provide for benefits for one's partner.

But I still do not see what my reasons for marrying have to do with whether same sex couples are afforded the same rights I enjoy. In the same fashion my marriage doesn't affect same sex couples, their union won't affect my lifestyle.

LA...you are avoiding trying to answer the question...Why do they need to get married other than marriage bestowing some sort of validation. Fine...you are hetero...good for you...now just explain why they need to get married if it is not for validation? You can't because that is the answer.

Actually, "Because I want to" is an answer. Why shouldn't I have the same rights as you? I love my fiancee and I want to marry her. It's as simple as that. How does that harm you or have any bearing on your life?

now just explain why they need to get married if it is not for validation? You can't because that is the answer.

And YOU cannot explain why you feel it is your bigoted right to deny them the same rights you have.

BTW Jim, are YOU married?

How about this Jim,

a) Having the right to make medical decisions for your partner if they should become incapacitated.

b) Having the same inheritance rights as heterosexual couples.

c) Having the same tax advantages as heterosexual couples.

And that's just a start.

LA...simpleton response..you will resort to name calling when you have no answer.

DrDr...1 and 2 can be taken care of with a simple contract. Number 1 simply needs an advanced medical directive...it is already settled. B simply needs a will. As far as real estate goes you simply write into the deed a right of survivorship. Even married heteros need to do this.

c. If tax breaks are the problem then I suggest you have congress revise the tax code to be a flat tax. I could go along with that.

Being gay is not a choice. I doubt your "gay friends" really told you that being gay is a "choice." The Only people who truly have a "choice" are bisexual, but even then, they choose who they want to be with but they still can't choose their feelings/attractions...

Jim, you act as if wanting acknowledgement for one's relationship is a bad thing. Why? Gay people are just like straight people in that way; we ALL want acknowledgement - that's okay and nothing to be ashamed of. As to other reasons, let's see, my children, who are being raised in my 32 year relationship, would very much like us to be able to marry. For people who claim to care so much about kids, you sure do not care about the many millions of kids being raised in gay homes (and there are millions of gay homes) who would ALSO like the acknowledgement that their parents were allowed to marry, and who are also being discriminated against until our marriages are legal by being denied social security if a partner dies, among other issues. And of course, if my partner dies, I cannot collect on her social security as a surviving spouse, nor can she if I die, despite the fact that we lived together and made all the same decisions about income and staying-at-home that married couples did. Nor can she put me on her medical coverage at work, or take compassionate leave or family leave if I have an emergency, or vice versa. Then there is the tax issue - in PA, for example, there is NO inheritance tax on property passed between spouses at death, while there is a 15% tax on property passed between people with "no relationship," which is the category for gay partners. So, even though we, as a couple, have bought properties, saved in a retirement fund, etc. together with joint funds, and are named in each other's Wills, we will still be treated unequally at time of death, not only on the assets passed between ourselves, but also those passed between my partner and the children she has helped raise for more than 30 years, and there is no contract or other document, other than a marriage certificate, that can change that. There are intestacy issues, tax issues, visitation issues, situations where family members manage to oust the partner from visitation with children they have co-parented, take possession of a loved one's body at time of death and refuse to permit the partner to make funeral arrangements - DESPITE written wishes - enter the home and take possessions, and many other situations which may seem unimportant to you, but to the individual who is not allowed to get medical care for the sick child of their partner, or who is excluded from an ICU despite a written directive, they are major. There is simply no other way to address all these issues and provide EQUAL rights to all citizens. Yes, maybe someone could go to court and win a case with a written contract, but if their loved one has died in the meantime, or grandparents have moved a child out of state, what good is a court order, and why should some people be required to take that route when others automatically are granted these rights as a result of the marriage certificate. So, yes, acknowledgement is there - and frankly, I feel that after 32 years of sticking together, through better AND worse, sickness and health, richer and poorer, our relationship DESERVES the same acknowledgement as anyone else's, and more than those who engage in serial marriages and divorces and have no idea what commitment really means.

Jim: Why do you *need* to get married? Simple question.

Jim, really name calling? Every single one of your posts today indicates your bigotry from your disagreement with the rights of women to vote to the topic at hand here.

Let's face it you're just a troll trying to push buttons and have yet to explain yo us how your life is affected by the rights of same sex couples being put on a par with yours.

Jim perhaps Gay couples want to get married because they love each other? I mean I was raised to believe that marriage what what two people do when they fall in love with each other and want to live the rest of their lives together.

You make it sound like Gay couples have no valid reason to want to get married.

Robin -

Wonderful post. I wanted to say all of that and more in response to the nonsense spouted here by Jim about how contracts can take care of everything.

me too, Robin.. spoken beautifully.. and i feel exactly the same way.. my partner and i are together over 9 years now

you list all the precise reasons why a marriage license trumps civil unions and contracts and powers of attorney.. the rights of marriage all become automatic with that license and recognition.. in every state!

Gay marriage is an abomination to the human race and will not be allowed once the Supreme Court rules. Only in places like the left coast and northeast where these KUMBAYA elitist live in sin think gay marriage is OK when it's disgusting behavior!!!

I love that Jim can't answer all of the questions posed to him, so he just posts random hatred instead. Well done, Jim. You sure showed everyone that used logic and reason.

Those gay marriage hating people sure love that word "abomination." Just for the sake of spicing things up, here are some synonyms: monstrosity, outrage, atrocity, barbarity, etc, etc. Mix it up a little.

Jim, you should go live in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Their punishments are prime examples of what happens to people when they are accused of practicing "disgusting behavior."

Prop 8 supporters are trying to create their own version of Sharia Law.

Jim this thread is an abonimation to you. this means you are to avoid it or are forbidden to be on it. How do like knowing that you are an abomination to the other posters on this site; to be avoided or forbidden?

Also the bible makes the meaning of Levitcus 18:22 and 20:13 very clear through it;s illustration or stories in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. It was a revelation to me and I bet it would be for you too, It's wondersful to really know what the scripture is all about.

Robin PA, beautiful post! But don't forget that even if same-sex couples are ultimately allowed to marry in CA, there won't truly be equality until same-sex marriage is recognized on a federal level. What many of these people like Jim fail to realize is that we can't keep going like this on a state-by-state basis.

I would like to ask Jim and others like him, how would you like it if there was no federal recognition of your heterosexual marriage? Imagine living in a state where heterosexual marriage was recognized but then for whatever reason you move to a state where it isn't recognized. How would you like it if your entire relationship was completely invalidated just by crossing the state line?

So you ask WHY we want legalized same sex marriage? I think your question has been answered more than sufficiently!

An "ex homosexual" (it just couldn't be an actor, now could it) pressured by family, friends, society, self loathing, or church, to believe that his natural sexual orientation was "sinful" and that he would be damned forever unless he "changed". Given that heterosexuals have anal and oral sex (no reproduction there), use contraceptives, cheat on their spouses, beat their wives or children, etc., I also suggest that they repent, give up their sexual orientation, and turn to Jesus. There's clearly something wrong with heterosexuality. Even if it is "natural".

why do you capitalize "He" in reference to this guy?

Just wondering....

Hey diego...you will never convince gays that they can leave the lifestyle...no mater how much evidence and testimony you bring forward. They will have an argument for anybody that comes forward to say they left the gay lifestyle. Oh yeah, vulgarity will be one of their favorite defenses.

Well, then, let's turn straight people who shouldn't be adding to the gene pool gay, whether they like it or not.

Once a gay, forever a gay.

It's called DENIAL.

Ya see...DeeDee and Greg just made my point. DeeDee...denial is not a river in Egypt.

"Hey diego...you will never convince gays that they can leave the lifestyle...no mater how much evidence and testimony you bring forward. They will have an argument for anybody that comes forward to say they left the gay lifestyle. Oh yeah, vulgarity will be one of their favorite defenses."

Actually, Jimbo, the opposite is far more true. There is actually very little evidence that "ex-gays" are truly changed. There is tons of evidence showing exactly the opposite. Tons of testimony of people who have been involved in the ex-gay movement stating how it makes things worse for them. People don't choose to be gay - why would someone do that? The people in the ex-gay movement are people who have been taught it's wrong, sinful, changeable, disgusting, etc. etc. They are most often truly religious people who cannot change. They go to these meetings, they go to shrinks, they go to healers, pastors, exorcists and guess what? It doesn't help, it makes them feel worse. They start feeling like they are just worthless and many times they attempt suicide. It's not the homosexuality that kills them - it's the oppressive dogma that tells these people that they are disgusting perverts if they don't change. As to the "successful" ex-gays? There's plenty of testimony out there that these people still have their same-sex desires but they have stuffed them, forced themselves into heterosexual unions that are less than what makes them happy. Must be nice for the poor heterosexual spouse who lives with a person who really doesn't want them as much as they should. Why push this on people? Of course you are going to have an occasional ex-gay who maybe it worked for because they weren't truly gay. The facts, however, are that the ex-gay movement is an utter fail. But, of course you, Jim, will just say that I won't look at the facts no matter what. You are wrong, I've actually researched this pretty extensively.

I used to smoke and I quit. Change is painful and you always want to return to conduct that you perceive gave you fulfillment.

Unfortunately, these "ex homosexuals" are just back in the closet. You can't change how you're born. But you can hide it, suppress it, deny it, and choose to live a lie. It's really sad...but they will always be gay no matter how much brainwashing they do to themselves.

And whatever we do, let's not discuss the high suicide rate of those trying to become "ex-gay". You know, honestly, if someone feels "convicted" to change their lives because they are unhappy, all the power to them! However, just because they "feel" something isn't right, doesn't make it so. The Amish "feel" that masturbation is a sin. Does that mean you are now going to stop masturbating because they Amish believe it's a sin? There are people in the Pentecostal church who believe coffee is a sin. Does that mean you are going to give up coffee? The Catholic church believes condoms are sinful. Does that mean you are going to never have sex with your wife unless you are trying to procreate? Do you see the silliness of this line of thinking? Just because some person has "seen the light" doesn't mean that they are "right." The ONLY reason they are "right" is because it fits into YOUR agenda and not into reality.

Sadly, StrokeTheFurryWall (subpar movie but the name is still hilarious), I do not see a day where everyone will look back & roll their eyes. Well at least not rolling their eyes for the same reason. We all know their are still proponents of any stone age way of thinking. Such as the fact that ANYONE proudly displays the Bars & Stripes anymore.

Hmm...divorce doesn't belong in a morally decent society either but it happens every day.

Spare me your morals.

If you think homosexuals chose their sexual orientation, then it stands to reason that heterosexuals did the same. Can you point to the time that you "decided" to be hetero and to be attracted to the opposite sex?

I'm a straight woman and I know I have always been straight and never could have "chosen" differently. It stands to reason that gays have had the same experience with their sexual orientation. It is not a choice, it is how people are born - some of us are redheads, some are brunette; some are short, some are tall; some are left-handed, some are right-handed; some are gay, some are straight.

The right to marry is not special treatment, it's equal treatment. And it harms you in no way whatsoever, so why oppose it?

You didn't choose to marry a woman. You chose to get married. If you "chose" to marry a woman, then what were your other choices? Other countries have legalized same sex marriage and they aren't falling apart, nor is the traditional family "going away". Only in America - the supposed land of diversity and live and let live - do religious and moral supremacists (or just plain fearful blockheads) try to impose their views on others so that THEY (not others)will be happy.

steelborn1, when did you choose to be straight?

And would you care to explain to me how forcing a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex, therefore having to live a lie, sanctifies marriage?

I am not one to make a big deal about this but to my fellow christians I can only say do not worry about what these people want to do with marriage. Marriage was initially established as a unity blessed by God and your commitment before God to stay committed and procreate. Governments may try to recognize and establish benefits for same sex couples to be able to say they are married. But realize this, their unity is not blessed by God, read the book of Romans, they cannot procreate with each other, they cannot be pronounced man and wife. The one true benefit for ME is knowing my marriage is blessed by God, and yes many couples fail, including same sex couples, but that does not take away from word of God for his word will never fail....As far as same sex couples being "married", their standard can never be the same as my standard, so I will not judge whether or not their's is right or wrong, God's word will make that judgement.

George...as the Bible puts it "...a man shall leave his Mother and Father and cleave unto his Wife and they shall become one." The word shall has a very deep and serious meaning in law. The word shall means that no other options exist.

Jim, the Bible's definition isn't valid under state law. The Bible is a religious document, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government's adoption of religious tenets.

"Marriage" ceased to be religious when states started regulating it as a civil practice. To wit: no one need be married inside a church. An official authorized under state law may solemnize a marriage. Usually that's a justice of the peace, a judge, a mayor, etc.

Pooks...simply pointing out the historical nature of marriage. Murder is mentioned in the first book of the Bible. If we refused to have laws against murder would that have legitimized murder.

But there have been marriages that pre-dates the Bible. And guess what, they had same-sex marriage back then!

If it predates the Bible it was not marriage.

Yes it is. It was "sanctified" by the appropriate pantheon.

Oh, so those who live in the ancient civilization of Egypt and CHina and Greece are all condemed to hell?

correction: I meant "lived."

DeeDee... the Bible is very clear on this subject. God speaks about the "Age of Reason". That is all you need to know. I know you hate it but let me look at it from your point of reference. Here goes. If you are right then I have nothing at all to worry about...do I? Do you know what that means...what is the corollary

Oh, so we're going pre-Biblical now?

Okay, fine! Sumerian texts (thousands of years earlier than the Bible), tell of two men who were banished from their tribe and had to start a new tribe in a new world. The Biblical story of Genesis is based on this text. In fact, much of the Old Testament stories are based on earlier writings.

Hence, in effect, there was an Adam and a Steve after all.

Jim: I think you need to get it through your skull that marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, and therefore it CAN predate the Bible.

If it is exclusive then get the hell of these boards and go lobby to bar Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, and Muslims from getting married. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

Gays should have the right to marry whether a "Christian" believes it to be right in the eyes of God or not. It is a state issue and not a religious one. I'm a Baptist who married a Catholic. The Catholics refuse to recognize us as married because I refuse to raise them in their church. That is within their right to believe that. There should be separation between church and state. I have NO right to impose my religous belief on anyone else. I had two uncles who loved each other deeply and recently died at the ripe age of 90+. They NEVER betrayed each other. There are many "don'ts" in the Bible and homosexuality doesn't stand alone. PRIDE is #1! For all you gays out there..... I support you. You are (or should be) equal to everyone else. We live in a so called free country and if we want you to respect us then we should show you the same. :)

#13.4 George-1496063...But realize this, their unity is not blessed by God, read the book of Romans, they cannot procreate with each other, they cannot be pronounced man and wife. The one true benefit for ME is knowing my marriage is blessed by God, and yes many couples fail, including same sex couples, but that does not take away from word of God for his word will never fail.

Prove your marriage is 'blessed by God'. Let's go have a chat & ask him......What? We can't do that?......Is he dead?? No, well then where is he?? Everywhere??.....That's a bit of a conundrum, but ok. Why can't I see him?? I am not the chosen....Damn....Ok let's go talk to a chosen, how do we find them?? OH, you've got a book of stories from people who were chosen to hear him. So these people wrote stories, prompted by a Great Being, to help mankind understand & deal with this world & fellow humanity. That's rather nice of them, but why not take credit for the work, their stories?? I mean, in today's standards, when anyone claims to have done something, "because the voice inside me said so", we tend to meet them GREAT suspicion. Why are you dogmatically following what a group of men, over time wrote & edited to shepherd (to put it politely)/control(to put it bluntly) the masses? Ok so these men that wrote stories for a book, because a voice told them to, have some proof that this God exists?? No........ok well what tows the line, what is missing? How are so many people such fervent followers of some long gone men's ancient interpretation of life through someone they can't see or talk to or hear?? ...........Faith.

Seems to me George you have FAITH that your marriage has God's blessing. So a book written by men, is how you know your marriage has "God's blessing"? Seems to me you only have man's blessing.

They wouldn't be recognized by the church as married but they can by the government. Jesus didn't get into political affairs. Remember????? Pay Ceasar what is due Ceasar, pay God what is due God. You are missing the point of salvation my friend and salvation is THE POINT! That would be the same as you telling a glutin they're going to hell. Are you saying ALL fat people are going to hell?

Salvation is THE point of Christianity, right? Then why are there over 15,000 different Christian sects? (which some of them do bless gay marriages) I suggest people work on their own Salvation and leave GOD to sort out the Salvation of others.

There are obviously a lot of Christians who interpret the Bible differently RossJ. Personally, I focus on the core truth and what I struggle with myself. What I find in the Bible (whether it's what I want to hear or not) it seems to have my best interest at heart. That's just what I believe. That's exactly why gay marriage should be LEGAL!!!!! That is my own interpretation and not EVERYONE ELSE. I don't oppose homosexuality because it's not my decision. If others feel that's right for them and they see no wrong in it then they have every right to live the way that makes them happy and healthy. Of course, I pray that ALL WANT to see things my way but if they don't.....it's their choice. Therefore......they are just as important as I am and deserve the same rights. We are seeing Christ being pushed out of everything it used to be widely accepted in. Why do you think that is? It's because we have OFFENDED GOD by our hatefulness and judgement of others. They don't see Christ in us when we aren't setting an example.

Jim

Clearly, you believe that the Bible is the "word of God." Prove it. Actually, just try proving it. It can't be done. You only believe it because the adults in your life told you it was true when you were a child.

The fact that gays and lesbians are "wired" that way is a fact that can, and has been, proven through scientific research. The Bible is a totally different matter. Some parts of the Bible have been verified. Some parts have been proven to be untrue. Some parts have been neither proven nor disproven, but just don't make much sense. For example, how many people really believe that there were so many men (all men, no women) in Genesis who lived to be hundreds of years old? How many really take that story about loaves and fishes literally? The Bible is full of parables that the fundamentalists take as complete truth. They miss the point entirely.

The bottom line is this: If you chose to believe that which can't be proven and refuse to believe that which is proven you can't expect to convince rational people that you have truth on your side. In addition, your use of the Bible to support your hateful beliefs is totally transparent.

Becky,

Thanks for the reply.. That's kind of my point. There are so many ways to read, interpret, and understand that Salvation is about the relationship between the person and Christ, not making your relationship the "mold" to follow. True Salvation takes focus, effort, and work. And you can't do that when you are monitoring everyone else. Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the toothpick from your neighbors.

How many people have been turned away from God and Jesus because of the hateful, judgmental, and often times damning attitude they encounter? How can God move through a persons life when his followers have turned the hearts of others to stone by their own actions? I prefer to let God be the judge and the shepherd and mind my own P's and Q's. And I am pretty sure that the grace of God covers all man kind.

Funny how so many who are "opposed" to same sex marriage lack basic grammar skills. One man spoke of "gays and labors". Now you speak or "recreating" to prevent extinction. I can assure you that gays recreate. I can also assure you that humankind won't become extinct because a minority of the population doesn't have kids - be those people gay, lesbian, or heterosexuals who CHOOSE NOT to have children. Or are heterosexuals who choose not to marry or to have kids suffering from a birth defect too?

So, shall call in in sick to work because I'm still gay. How do I say it though?

"uhm, Hi John, I'm not going to work today, I'm still gay."

Can you cite your source that says homosexuality is a birth defect?

Also, if someone is sterile (which is probably a birth defect, or caused by something else), should they be banned from getting married too?

Who cares if the guy can't spell lesbos or lesbians or whatever. It is pretty obvious what was meant. While we are on it, what in the world does gay stand for. Is it some kind of acronym? And anyone that believes they can create another life on their own flunked biology big time.

"recreate?" We have the right to play Frisbee in the park?

Pooks, yes, but don't let CA voters know. They'll be putting "Ban Frisbee playing in the park by gays" on the ballot in November.

Are these folks saying that as gay Americans we should all be automatically eligible for permanent disability payments? Since gay people on average pay more in taxes, this will not only shrink the tax basis but also expand the disability outgo enormously! I bet there are a lot of Republican Congresspeople just salivating at the opportunity to turn that concept into law! What a goofy idea. Just like folks "choosing" to be gay - 'cause people would be so anxious to be treated ike dirt. By the way, there are homosexuals in pretty much EVERY species - humans are no different. Do you really think penguins and rabbits and horses are "choosing" a homosexual lifestyle? Obviously not - it is a biological imperative. In fact, in some species, it is proven that when the species reaches a certain level of overpopulation, the number of homosexual members increases in order to alleviate some of the excessive birth rate. Maybe all those folks who disapprove of those who are born gay should test this theory by slowing down their own overpopulating. The insistence on having more than 2 children per couple is probably raising the number of gay Americans born every day.

Robin, interesting point. I wonder how many people would suddenly "go gay" if they could get permanent disability payments?

Anyway, about biological imperatives: why is it that in every single case ever documented, the 11th biological son born to a mom is gay?

So, how do you know you're gay? You have 10 older biological brothers.

(Anyway, that said, I'm against all marriages in the first place. How boring!)

I'm pretty internet savvy Greg& I had some difficulty verifying the '11th son' theory.

Little help please....

Sheila.... by definition, GAY is synonymous with LICENTIOUS, which means disregard for sexual restraints and rules of correctness.

American, the article was published in a medical journal several years back. I can't recall the article, but overall it was more about genetics and fetus development.

Also, the article pointed out that miscarriages also impact the issue.

I am not a scientist or a geneticist. (And, by the way, I am against any form of marriage. I just don't believe we were engineered for monogamy.)

davecomm

The statement that "every species on Earth is genetically tailored to recreate and thereby prevent extinction" is completely untrue and reflects your utter ignorance of biology. Since your premise is incorrect all of the foolish statements that followed have no value, except to reveal your lack of knowledge. That which is obvious to you has no basis in fact.

By what evidence and information do you have that proves that? You can't just say it is wrong without providing evidence as to why?

Evolution is the major unifying theory of biology. I'm afraid that teaching biology is beyond the scope of Newsvine.

Every species on Earth is genetically tailored to recreate and thereby prevent extinction.

Nature is so varied and wonderful that there is even a species of lizard that reproduces solely through parthenogenesis but exhibit homosexual mating prior to the laying of eggs. (another shout out to Biologist Eric for this tidbit of information)

Damn, I can already hear heads exploding!

That is how our country is structured - no one can pass a law, even by a majority vote, that is deemed unconstitutional. The courts determine constitutionality, not the majority of the voters.

There is no point in time in which any other civil rights legislation would have held up to a majority vote - whether it be abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, abolishing Jim Crow laws, etc. Do you really want to put civil rights up to a vote? Think about the implications first.

Civil rights should never, ever be put up to a vote. Ever.

Our constitution protects the rights of the minorities and protects us against tyranny of the majority. It's a pretty great document.

@myopinion-13

"It ends my confidence in our system of Demorcarcy (sic)"

Except, we live in a constitutional republic, not a "Demorcarcy".

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

(~~Thomas Jefferson)

Your comment ends my confidence in our system of civic education....

SOF1946, I support what you said, as does my post, so I am not sure why you directed your comments to me. It was the original poster, Rich Taddiken, who mentioned that we live in a democracy.

And I agree with you that civic education is sorely lacking, at least among a number of posters here.

So Rich Taddiken, you believe that we must abide by a majority vote? What if we had voted FOR segregation, or against giving women the vote? I thank God that we live in a country where "right" and "justice" don't always equal "majority". Many of the rights that you enjoy were won by people who did the very thing that you speak ill of; they disagreed with laws or social norms, went to the courts, and made life better for millions. And you call them "fools"!

Sorry -- technical error LOL. I'm not real good at multi-tasking. I think it was high road who made the original "marry my dog" comment.

So obama is president because of mob rule. I love it!

Hey hans......im a white male, so im fine with a majority vote....so go imagine a gay fantasy where you can go marry obama and the whole liberal crackpot population and quit attacking people who stand for morality

Jim, actually the president is voted into office by the electoral college, not the majority vote.

Honestly, doesn't anyone get any education in civics anymore?

I am a lot more worried about how the future of our society will be impacted by a bunch of people who have no idea how our government works than about the impact of John and Joe getting married.

I agree Rich....How many tax dollars are going to be spent on this ridiculous subject..

Hans - Your ridiculous comment about people who oppose same sex marriage, "lack grammar skills" is just that...RIDICULOUS...I believe most people who say they are in favor actually aren't...they just want to be politically correct, so they will argue just for the sake of arguing...It makes me think that, this is how we got the Obamination administration running this once great country

The vote was never valid in the first place. Marriage is a fundamental right; the SCOTUS has said so on numerous occasions.

WE DO NOT ALLOCATE ACCESS TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BASED ON A POPULAR VOTE.

myopinion...the only reason the electoral college voted him in is because he got more than 50% of the votes in those states. That is mob rule according to you, or is it mob rule only when more than 50% of the state casts a vote you disagree with?

Jim, actually the electoral college historically has not been required to follow the will of the voters, although many states (but not all) now require it, if I recall correctly.

Regardless, there is a difference between the right to vote someone into office and the right to vote for a law. Laws have to be constitutional. Period. Now you can vote someone into office who supports an unconstitutional law, and if elected that person can try to get his/her law passed, and if it is passed, it too will be subject to the scrutiny of the courts and the Constitution.

Again, basic civics stuff that you should have learned in high school.

But but but obama is jamming a whole mess of crap down the throats of a majority of citizens that oppose his insane policies. That seems to me like mob rule at its worst. What da ya think.

So I guess this means you are okay with this gay marriage stuff working its way through the courts to see if it passes constitutional muster...or do you think that because it infringes on your agenda that it needs to be thrown out today.

Jim, that's why the president isn't elected for life. Nest presidential election the people may decide on someone else. That's not mob rule. It's how our country works. Again, basic civics. I can't tell if you are intentionally being dense, are truly that ignorant about what terms like "tyranny of the majority", "mob rule" and "consititutionality" mean, or if you just don't care about the concepts because they don't suit your goals.

And in answer to your second paragraph, yes, I am ok with gay marriage working its way through te courts to see if it passes constitutional muster. That's how the system works. I don't have an agenda. I do feel confident about how the Supreme Court will rule if and when they hear this case or a similar case ... but of course I could be wrong, only time will tell.

I don't have an agenda. This issue doesn't affect me personally, as I am a straight women in a 21 yr "traditional" marriage, to the best of my knowledge none of my children are gay, and besides gay marriage is legal in my state. But I do believe that legalizing gay marriage is the right and just thing to do. And I have little tolerance for the arguments made against it, because none of them pass any logical muster, at least none that I have heard.

coolpajamas

Hey hans......im a white male, so im fine with a majority vote....so go imagine a gay fantasy where you can go marry obama and the whole liberal crackpot population and quit attacking people who stand for morality

Okay, who is more moral? A man who marries a woman, gets her pregnant, then kills her? A woman who spends the day while hubby and kids are out of the house sleeping around? Oh, I have it! A Teacher (male or female) having an affair with his/her fourteen year old student! A woman caring for her female partner of 25 years as said partner battles the final stages of cancer? A man committing to his male partner, and living up to said commitment? (This is not to belittle all those who have stood by their heterosexual partners through similar battles, but to make a point. My own father cared very tenderly for my mother in her fight against breast cancer to the day she passed away, and an uncle spent years with his Alzheimer's ridden wife and never looked aside for a minute)

The problem isn't whether marriage should be or is a male/female joining. The problem is that we, as a society, fail to live up to the commitments that we make. We decide to marry, and when the first blush of lust is off the relationship, we decide--oh, I made a mistake. I don't love this person. And Divorce Lawyers take home paychecks. Why? I can tell you in one brief sentence:

BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TAUGHT WHAT LOVE IS; WE ARE TOLD LOVE IS WHAT IT IS NOT. Love is when someone else's well-being is as important to us as our own. That's it. That's the whole thing. Love is NOT the whole, "Oh my god, I'm going to die if I can't have him/her in my life" sexual attraction that may or may not last beyond twenty minutes. It is a deep caring for the other's wellbeing, their hopes and dreams, their happiness. When someone else is as important to us as we are to ourselves, THAT is love.

As such, we as a race are capable of loving more than one person. A parent loves a child, a young boy his redbone hounds, a girl a pig, a man a woman--or another man, a woman a man--or another woman. Love is what it is; pure and simple. LUST, on the other hand (while a mighty nice feeling) is a hormonal drive that can be enticed by scent and vision. (If it weren't so, perfumers and pornographers would have been out of business long ago.) THIS is where the problem arises. ONE CAN NO MORE CHOOSE WHAT AFFECTS ONE'S HORMONES, WHAT MAKES ONE EXCITED, THAN ONE CAN CHANGE ONE'S BASIC GENETICS. If you're blond and you dye your hair, guess what? It grows back blond. Colored contacts can change your eyecolor--until you take them out. You can't get taller--or shorter. Artificially inflating--or deflating--your breast size doesn't change the genes that made them what they were to start with. And in the end, none of this affects or changes who you love.

As a Christian--I know that's a dirty word to a lot of you out there--I understand that there is only ONE law that I have to live up to. By following that one law, I abide by all the others. And that one law is what makes Christianity the greatest religion that could be, for no other religion demands we give so much of ourselves, and that is this one thing.: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU.

That in itself is the ultimate manifestation of love. If you live by that one law, you will not lie, you will not steal, you will not commit murder, you will do no harm, but will go out of your way to help your neighbor, you will not worry about whether two people whom God has obviously made the way they are for a reason love each other and make a commitment to honor that love or whether they live a so-called normal life.

I am not going to go so far as to say that homosexuals (male or female) are more inclined to honor that commitment than heterosexuals, or that the kids they have will be better educated. Those arguments are irrelevant, and nonexistent due to the nature of individuals. How well a child does in school is directly proportional to how important that child's education is to the parents--and how involved they are willing to be. Sadly, many parents fail to make education a priority, leaving it up to the schools, who are only worried about test scores. So, bright children who have difficulties with the methods of teaching in use fall by the wayside, and we bemoan the fact that we are falling behind in the world. As for whether homosexuals will be more inclined to remain married as opposed to heterosexuals, again, it will depend on the INDIVIDUAL'S desire and commitment to the marriage--and on whether they understand that love is when the other person's well-being is as important to you as your own.

This is how you have couples that stay together for thirty, forty, fifty years or more, after the raging flames of lust have died.

As for the MORAL objection to Homosexual marriage: if you truly believe that God made us, male and female, in His image, and you truly believe that God knows everything before it happens, do you honestly think that God really cares whether two men or two women make that commitment--or would he care more that they were acting without the benefit of said commitment? And have you seen ANYWHERE that it has been said that Churches would be forced to perform ceremonies that they disagree with? When you look at the underlying basis of marriage, and realize that its PRACTICAL purpose no longer exists in the light of DNA testing, that being the near guarantee that a man was raising his own children, and the advent of single parent households, the practical basis for marriage is gone, leaving only that strength of character reason, being that of honoring a commitment one has made, and the sex of one's partner has nothing to do with whether a person is inclined to find any such vows binding.

Morals are what we as a Society agree on as a code of conduct. God inspired or man-defined, if we as a society agreed it was moral to cut the hearts of our enemies out as the center of a ceremony of worship to our god, we would find it immoral to set said enemy free. If we as a society agreed it was moral to throw infants into raging fires to honor our god, it would be this that we would do on Sundays.

I don't know about you, but I worship a God who so loved me that He sent HIS son to die for the sins of those who were then, and for those who hadn't yet been born into the distant future. I don't believe that the loving, forgiving God that I believe in would condemn someone for loving someone of his own sex, nor would he have made that person in that way if He had not felt that there was someone out there that would need that person in the way he was.

In the long run, I look at it this way: it is Love that is important, loving another and committing to that person, making that person's whole being as important to you as yourself, learning that our base animal nature--the one that is where lust lives unfettered--is not the end of who we are, but the beginning, and subjugating that in the drive to be more than we are, and closer to God.

If you are truly a Christian, think about what the law he gave us said, live it, and forget about whether gay marriage is immoral. The only thing immoral in this whole debate is the hatred that so many so-called Christians and so many non-Christian Religious and so many Atheists insist on interjecting into the discussion. Do unto others as You would have done unto you. It's not easy, and yet, at the same time, it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

That brought a tear to my eye. Well said, honey, well said.

::Stands up whistling & applauding::

If it's written, I'll read it, thank you so much. That is the best possible argument I could have ever come up with & hope that you do not mind being directly quoted in future 'Gay Marriage' threads. Born & raised Christian here, but have shedded the designation since finishing college. The only thing I consistently pulled from 18 years of church on Sunday & PSR classes once a weeknight, was do unto others. To start quoting you right away....

It's not easy, and yet, at the same time, it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

American Illuminati

The only thing I consistently pulled from 18 years of church on Sunday & PSR classes once a weeknight, was do unto others.

If you got that message in 18 years, and live it, you ARE a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Whom do you think Christ will welcome more, the person who calls himself a Christian and spews hatred in His name? Or the person who lives the message He taught and calls himself something else?

Thank you for your kind words. You may quote me all you wish.

Two strongly disliked issues being forced upon us.

Hell will be so crowded with hypocritical Christians that there will be no room for other sinners.

Religious wars, public burnings and torture in the name of God, religious bigotry, a history of Catholics and Protestants cutting each others throats, land and power grabs in the name of "reformation", forced conversion of Pagans, suppression of or intolerance to native religions, modern intolerance towards diversity, and you speak of perversion and corruption like you know of it first hand. You do.

i guess we will have all the Mormons, Baptist to help keep us warm

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not pretty places to live...probably something similar to hell.

There are no hypocritical Christians---just people calling them that to justify their own shortcomings. There are however, weak Christians and people who unrightly claim the faith.

Hey Buck....did you know that we are to minister within our church/home but we are to be missionaries within the world. We are not to preach the do's and don'ts to non-believers. They're supposed to see the goodness in our hearts and our love for all. If someone asks you what makes you happy.....tell them. (hope they see some happiness)

Buck, I know I won't be there on your judgment day, but I would like to wish you well.

high road ....your an idiot

His dog's ok.

High Road...I wanna meet your dog...does he have any sisters.

@James W-2187871

"All it (the Constitution) says is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Where, exactly, does the US Constitution say that? You must have a different version than the one that I have.

I think you're confusing the State of California Constitution with the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution trumps, and says that no laws that the local governments pass can violate the U.S. Constitution. By awarding a benefit to one group of people, and not awarding it to the other, the California Constitution is in violation of the 14th Amd. to the U.S. Constitution, and the law must be removed. The 14th was passed in order to protect the rights of the minority (among other reasons), and it cannot be trumped by a simple majority vote on a conflicting law. The only way to vote this into effect would be to have a U.S. Constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman and I really don't think anyone could get that through the entire circus necessary to pass.

If the only nonreligious argument you can come up with is reproduction, your argument fails. We don't disallow women who have gone through menopause from getting married, or infertile men and women, or couples who choose to not have kids, or men who have had vasectomies. Yet obviously all of these unions won't lead to reproduction.

@Steve W.-747922

"something that nature has already made illegitimate"

If your statement was in fact true, there would be no instances of homosexuality occurring naturally among animals in the wild. Since it does occur in nature, you cannot logically allege it to be "unnatural".

"Next will be adoption, tax benefits, or any other multitude of items that gays will go after in a relentless quest of legitimacy."

None of that has anything to do with "legitimacy," but everything to do with equality. What possible justification can you offer, in a secular, constitutional republic, for denying to some citizens the rights which are enjoyed by other citizens?

@ SOF

People are not animals we are human beings.

"None of that has anything to do with "legitimacy," but everything to do with equality. What possible justification can you offer, in a secular, constitutional republic, for denying to some citizens the rights which are enjoyed by other citizens?"

It has everything to do with legitimacy. People want those things not because they don't have them but because they don't feel normal and they are trying to do anything they can to deny feeling abnormal at every level to the point at which they even denied it on a subconscious level. I am refering to a point early in a homosexuals life when they felt bad or wrong about what they were doing.

You can tell yourself it's ok all you want however homosexuality is not normal. Please understand I am not saying we should do away with gays or somehow remove them from society or kill them or some other barbaric antidote. On the contrary I think we should do what we can to support them and offer them alternatives or opportunities to make a different choice. Those types of things are available and I know people who have changed their lives and are happy they did.

in a secular, constitutional republic, for denying to some citizens the rights which are enjoyed by other citizens?"

__________________________________________

Because sodomizing another man and public displays of affection among same sex couples SICKENS 80% of NORMAL society! THAT'S WHY!!@!! If it doesn't sicken you then you have the same disease. Its a mental illness to lust after the same sex, a bad gene, something in the brain is WRONG! That doesn't mean that all of society has to witness this abomination just because a small percentage of society is infected with it! That's the bottom line! Keep your sick sexual fantasies to your self. How many bears or deer or rabbits or any other animals in the wild do you see giving each other oral sex or performing sodomy on the same gender? YOU NEVER SEE THAT, WHY? Ill tell you why! ITS NOT NORMAL! PERIOD! NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, ITS NOT NORMAL! GOT IT!? And dont tell me about some poisonous frog somewhere in the amazon jungle has sex with the same sex..... SO WHAT, you get the point.

@Steve W.-747922: Earth to Steve - get off the short bus before it's too late. Just drop the act already; using weasel-words like 'a different choice' when it's pretty obvious you mean 'the choice prescribed by my God and my narrowed, subjective view of society' isn't winning you any points.

Your argument against equality in favor of legitimacy echoes those voices that repressed blacks and women from seeking equal rights in the past: your words could easily swap 'homosexual' for either of those two groups and sound like rhetoric from the late-1800's/early-1900's.

Furthermore, I don't know if you feel asleep in biology class or what, but people are animals: we simply happen to be (in theory, at least) possessed of vast intelligence.

get yourself educated americanguy - you are the one who's obviously sick. By the way some species of male animals do have sex with each other. Maybe if you'd bother to read you'd know that. Homosexuality is not a mental illness - any psychiatrist or psychologist will tell you that. Your obviously a bigoted moron who needs to get a life....If it sicken you to see us kissing - then u don't have to look. Its not like we're inviting you into our bedrooms

I have a better idea. Keep your circus sex in your own bedroom and away from my family and children. Like I said. It sickens the rest of society. Also we are not concerned about the frogs in the Amazon that have same gender sex with one another, they dont do it for perverted pleasure as homo's do anyway so its not relevant. Your grasping at straws to normalize your sick behavior. Hang it up. Maybe it will be accepted as normal when society is like it was on the movie with Mel Gibson. MAD MAX. When society gets like that, then you'll be accepted as normal. At the rate this world is going, society will be at that level in no time! You wont have time to wait. Im old, thank God ill be dead when that day comes.

Hey my dog wants to hump my leg...does that mean my dog is gay...or does he think I have latent homosexual tendencies and he is simply trying to get me to express them. Either way I don't like him humping my leg...it is disgusting having him rub his peepee on my leg.

No Jim, it means your dog likes your leg.

You need look no farther than right here in America to find men living with several wives, so don't try to use your us v. them argument to bolster your position.

Actually, no.

Roman and Greek societies had no problem with homosexuality. It was actually said that "women were for babies and boys were for love". Homosexuality was encouraged and when everyone was forced to convert because their ruler did, homosexuality became "immoral".

Someone provide me an argument why homosexuals shouldn't be married without the following:

a religious argument. Any argument involving the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran or any other religious book is rendered invalid for two reasons: 1) not everyone on the receiving end practices that religion and 2) this country is not governed by those Commandments or books or Pillars or whatever.

an economic argument. If homosexuals were allowed to marry, there would be more couples contributing to the economy and therefore injecting more money into circulation.

a biological argument. Yes, homosexuals can't make babies by themselves BUT there are plenty of heterosexual couples making babies that will either end up aborted or abandoned. As long as there are heterosexuals making those babies, the race will carry on.

a social argument. The argument "threat to family values and the sanctity of marriage" is invalid as long as we have Hollywood marriages, cheating spouses and people on their 9th marriage.

y'know, 60 years ago, these arguments were in full swing for interracial marriage... hmmm >_>

Prop 8 supporters got you on the economic argument, I believe. Sorry to be nit picky.

Rather than 2 single homosexuals paying Single tax rates, which have less tax breaks. We'd have these new couples of the same combined income paying less because of marriage tax breaks. Or these couples doing the "traditional" route & 1 member of the relationship giving up a career to rear the children. Thus losing a paying tax's workforce member.

But I highly doubt this issue is hotly debated due to the slight Federal loss of income if all those 'Single incomes' were combined into "Married incomes".

Don't bother reading the Bible -- the hero dies at the end....

@SOF

Apparently you didn't read far enough. There is a little more to the story.

@Reasonalble voice- God does consider us to all be his children.....But just because you are someone's child doesnt mean you cant make mistakes. God loves everyone, but this love doesnt stop people from making horrible mistakes such as gay marriage

...or making the horrible mistake of eating shellfish...

@Steve W.-747922: What, you mean the part with the horrible dying and flaming death and the destruction of the world?

The Bible would make a great snuff film.

...wait a minute...

One day your going to wish you had another shot at your choices in life. Be to late then.

Blessed are the Peacemakers,

Not the War Pigs.

@ Exodite Dragon

Why do you choose to think of death when you could choose to think of salvation. The world is going to end one day long after you or I are dead. From a pure scientific point of view one day the sun take care of the end of the earth.

So are you living in denial or what?

Exodite Dragon is a complete idiot

Blessed are the War Pigs..

Who let the Peacemakers live.

Slum dog, put this in your book and stop taking up so much space. booooooooring

Slumdog, well written. It is often written that heterosexuals divorce and remarry and that is used as an argument for same-sex marriage. You pointed out very accurately that the divorce experiment in the 60s was and is a total failure. The open acceptance of divorce has caused a lot of problems and has also resulted in a lot of new marriages that should not have happened. Why does this happen? Because people don't consider the consequences and commitment of marriage. They basically see marriage as a simple thing to get into and get out of, and they don't consider the effects on society when that happens. Children of broken homes, etc. Yes, many children adapt, but it is unnatural and very stressful to them. Many never recover from the divorce and they often enter the same pattern as they witnessed of their parents; divorce. Divorce is a bad thing, and as you note, an experiment that failed and is having lasting detrimental effect on families. The same is true, in my opinion, on same-sex marriage. It goes against natural tendencies and as we see time and time again, when we go against nature, the results are often bad.

I think that you need to restudy the animal world and nature. You are going to be surprised at the same gender relationships in the animal world or the "World Of Nature".

This appears to be one of the few intelligent discussions on this issue. I am of the opinion that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - live and let live. As concerns the "science" behind this issue - it is quite murky and inconclusive. Homosexuality, at its core, is a complex behavior and it is quite difficult to determine what parts of the behavior is genetically programmed (if any). As with all behaviors, science really lacks a clear understanding of the roots of how an individual behaves whether it be choice or genetics. It is true that the brain is constantly re-wiring itself and this plasticity holds hope for altering all kinds of behavior. I agree that if there is research in these areas it should not be stopped - especially not stopped because of political pressure of one sort or another..

The answer to your entire extremely erudite but ultimately self-serving and convoluted rant is ultimately quite simple. Human beings are not beets, and beets have no constitutional rights.

Slumdog, you say that "In every area of life we often see the dangers of changing things without sufficient information about the consequences."

However, at the same time you are advocating for research on the brains of gay people to "cure homosexuality". Didn't scientists used to believe that they could "cure mental illness" when in fact many of their experiments led to harmful procedures on human beings. These experiments are no longer performed today due to the inhumane treatment of those people and harmful side effects.

Do you truly believe that we should continue to experiment on human beings to make everyone the same? I think I saw this on an episode of Star Trek when visiting an alien race. If you haven't seen it, I can tell you that the result didn't work out so great for the people of that "perfect" society.

I certainly enjoyed your well written argument and appreciate an intelligent debate. How would your son feel to have his brain re-wired or realistically labatomized?

Slumdog.....I disagree with you, but I find your opinion refreshing inasmuch as it appears based on something other than homophobia or subjective religious beliefs. I am straight and have utilized the forces of the state to sanction and end 5 marriages.....maybe I should try a man.... I see marriage as nothing more or less than a state sanctioned contract in which obligations of a very personal nature are created....and thereafter...quite often....breached. I see no harm in allowing same-sex marriages. There are certain benefits which accrue as a result of a "legal" marriage....including the right to inherit (speaking specificly to matters intestate), health insurance, favorable taxing (sometimes), homestead laws.....etc. I do not care whether we allow "marriage" or "civil unions"; although the latter seem likely to create some problems.....none of which couldn't be overcome. I question how a "civil union" would be any different from a marriage and I am loathe to deny to a significant portion of the population rights and privileges enjoyed by those who are allowed to "marry". Perhaps the best course of action would be to deny any legal privileges to flow from marriage, thereby treating everyone equally....I can imagine the major outcry following the draconian results of such a course of conduct. Why can't we just be fair with our homosexual brothers and sisters? At least with respect to state-created rights and privileges......there should be an equal playing field.

hardly refreshing, Perplexed.. he's posted this neo-Nazi propaganda before (and even though he keeps modifying it, it still reeks of his grand scheme of a eugenic cleansing of the "gay problem" by eliminating the gay gene)..

and read his past posts, they're more in line with his true thinking - in this one (which has been shot down vigorously by all kinds of posters including str8, married, gay, etc) he tries to disguise his homophobia through science.. but he betrays his true feelings when he mentions a "gay cure" and alludes to the irrational slippery slope arguments with the "Pandora's Box" reference

..and to top it off, he claims his adopted son is in a committed relationship with another man.. and he is not only fighting to prevent his son's right to the pursuit of happiness, but still spewing his slippery slope and human experiment and delaying equal rights bile.. unbelievable..

..and as i said before: i for one don't need any more "information".. i want equal rights

55 and still alive....it's great to find you on here speaking the truth and sensibility!

thanks, Bambi! hugs..

Actually so that they can take advantage of all the legal protections that come with marriage, as well as the societal acceptance of the union and a chance to announce their commitment and devotion to one another. You know, the same reasons that straight couples choose to marry.

Ok, lets go with your argument and there are no "rights" or "human rights" involved in it.

You now will lose all of your benefits in regards to taxes, legal and other things which would have come from marriage.

What did you say, that not fair, oh well sorry, its not a "Human Right".

myopinion-13 I hate to burst your bubble but as the voters in California clearly stated, SOCIETY does not want to accept gay marriage. It's being forced down on us, by a minority, on the basis of a discrimination that does not exist. Marriage is a religious bond between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a man and a goat. Gays enjoy the same freedom to marry that the rest of society does - they don't want that - they want to change the definition of the word marriage and twist it into something to suit their own desires.

Sorry Kaye, but marriage in the US is not recognized because you got married in a church. You still have to apply for a marriage license. Duh, where have you been?

myopinion-13 -

My point exactly. Legal protections of marriage and societal acceptance are not basic human rights. They may be human desires, but they are far from inalienable rights. Therefore, the basic human rights arguement is invalid. The legal benefits and societal acceptance should only be granted to those marriages which are deemed socially acceptable.

dee, you have to love these religous preaching fools. Priests........molestastion, think about it.

To those who have responded to me by saying we should not allow gay marriage because it is not socially acceptable, consider that a number of US states, not to mention countries worldwide, have deemed it legal and socially acceptable, so that argument fails.

As far as what the voters had to say, that argument has been invalidated time and again - (1) you cannot vote on civil rights ; (2) you cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional in our country. The issue should never have been put up to a vote for reason #1 (if civil rights were put up to a vote, women would not be voting, blacks and whites would not attend schools together, slavery would still be the law of the land); but since it was, it is now subject to legal scrutiny regarding its constitutionality, as with any law passed anywhere in the U.S. - that is our system of government, our democratic republic, which wisely protects us from tyranny of the majority (ie mob rule).

In the end the constitution trumps all. And as we've seen in the past with Supreme Court rulings striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriages, I believe the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this issue much as they did in Loving vs Virginia.

Essentially we are looking at two issues here: 1) The definition and purpose of marriage as defined by the church and 2) The definition and purpose of marriage as defined by the government. In the USA, obviously, marriage was first defined by the church and subsequently adopted the government. The government decided that marriage, as defined by the church, was beneficial to society and henceforth embraced the church's definition and purpose of marriage. Nowadays it seems that some folks in society that are opposed to the church are trying to get the government to completely abandon its longheld definition and purpose of marriage. If this happens, the societal benefits of traditional marriage as defined by the church will be lost and society as a whole will suffer.

krowdykutz,

The church is not a necessary party to marriage. You are confusing religious marriage with civil marriage. No one is arguing that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples (although many churches and other religious institutions already choose to do so); this argument is about civil marriage.

And how, specifically, will society as a whole suffer from allowing same sex marriage? I live in a state where same sex marriage is legal, and guess what - the sky has not fallen, the children have not grown horns, the locusts have not invaded, the aliens have not taken over. Life just goes on. No one is suffering.

Do you disagree with my statement that the church originally instituted marriage and that the US government subsequently adopted the church's definition of marriage and instituted certain legal benefits to those marriages?

krowdykutz, I really don't know the origin of marriage laws in the U.S. I do know, however, that marriage in the U.S. and elsewhere has evolved over time, as all things do. Once upon a time it was a socially acceptable thing to prohibit interracial marriages. People argued that it would be the downfall of society. The Supreme Court struck those laws down unanimously as unconsititutional. Guess what ... we all survived and even prospered. Nowadays we look back on those laws as absurd.

Now we have laws against gay marriage. People argue that it will be the downfall of society. I have confidence that when this issue reached the Supreme Court, laws outlawing same sex marriage will also be struck down. And we will all survive. And by the time our children are our age, they will look back and wonder what the big deal was.

Edited to add: If you really are so concerned about the church's role in defining marriage, how does that fact that many churches and other religious institutions now perform gay marriages figure into that equation? Seems like lots of religious institutions are evolving in their points of view too.

Guess what Krowdy, before the settlement, Native Americans have been getting married. So no, marriage was not started by your church.

Marriage, including same-sex, has been around long before even the bestselling work of fiction called the bible existed.