Gay Marriage

The state should only be granting civil unions. These unions should be granted to consenting adults. Extend any tax benefits, inheritance priveledges, hospital visitations etc. to each partner in such unions.

Leave marriage to the churches. Let them set their own rules regarding gay marriages, or any other sort of marriage, for that matter. Say a church frowns on mixed religious or ethnic marriage----who will care? Go and find a church that doesn't have that particular hangup and get married there, if it means that much.

Disregard the nonsense peddled by the fundies about gay marriage undermining the sanctimony of marriage. Just look at any tabloid and see how the institution of heterosexual marriage is treated by the rich and famous. Next, see how many children are born out of wedlock in the US. Finally, go and harrass your divorced relatives for not taking their commitments made in the sight of men and gods seriously and then come back and lecture us about how allowing gays to marry is somehow deleterious to marriage.

JerseyRomer

Hammerhead wrote, "hammerhead :
Darian,
Wrong again.
Matthew 5:32 goes even further in condemning the male than Matthew 19,condemning the man on two points.
Condemning him first for commiting his own adulterey and then condemning him for what he has "causeth her" to do:

"That whosoever shall put away his wife,saving for the cause of fornication,CAUSETH her to commit adultery..." (Matthew 5:32)

Jesus's absolution of her, and double condemnation of the responsible male clear and comprehendible to anyone with at least a fourth grade education.

How compassionate of you to find the woman guilty in light of Jesus's clearly placing the onus and cause on the male. Good looking out for the woman's intrest."

In the case of adultery/fornication the man/woman are allowed to divorce the person who committed the adulterous act and are also allowed to re-marry, according to scripture.

Jesus does not hold the non-person who committed the adulterous act responsible for the sin of the one who committed adultery, thus allowing that person the choice to re-marry and rightfully so.

Additionally, The State issues the marriage certificate.
If a Church, or a religion, does not wish to marry two humans of the same sex in their Church, that is their right.
The State however, can only look at the couple that wishes to be married as two humans.

We should allow same sex marriages. The same logical rules that apply to heterosexual marriage should apply to same sex marriages.
Why would we deny anyone their reasonable chance for a life with a partner they care for so deeply?

Thirty or so years ago, boys typically referred to homosexuals as queers. Homosexuality was oddly defined then, at least among many adolescent males. If you enjoyed performing oral sex on another male, you were "queer." If you (potentially) enjoyed receiving oral sex from another male, you were pretty much normal. The very popular joke that ends, "Tuesday, it's your turn in the barrel," gives evidence of this strange arrangement of "queer" and "normal."

The point is, an awful lot of us had no idea what we were talking about when it came to defining homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexuality. We grew up and still never took the time to study and reflect on this complicated matter of human sexuality. On the folk level, we inanely conflate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. On the sociocultural level, we propose slippery slope arguments against gay marriage: gay marriage leads to polygamy and marriage with orangutans. This despite the universal reality that sanctioned polygamy, past and present, has been strictly heterosexual! I don't really know much about the history of sanctioned human/orangutan marriages, but I'll bet it's not all that well correlated to gayness.

Here's what we do know in 2008. Homosexuality, as it appears in its condemnable form in the Bible, has mainly to do with perceived unsavory activities of nearby unbelievers and is usually grouped with what might be called "pagan practices." This fact does not in itself make homosexual behavior biblically OK, but it weakens the later theological arguments against homosexual behavior by its intellectual detachment from those later arguments.

Those theological arguments, at least the ones worth countenancing, never condemn a person for an unbidden sexual attraction to the same gender. It is always the homosexual behavior that is condemned, when condemning is what's going on. In other words, the most important discussions, "what is human nature" and "what is human sexuality" are bypassed by a moral inquiry that zips right to discrete behaviors. It depends on the anemic concept of sin as a forbidden act and leaves us with a morality comprised of an endless list of do's and don'ts — the last thing Jesus (or Paul) would ever suggest.

As our understanding of human sexuality deepens, we abandon idiotic childhood notions of "queer" and "normal." We reflect on the lessons there for the learning from our gay sisters and brothers about the astounding ubiquitousness of love, the sustaining power of fidelity, the healing force of the caring heart.

And we once again are left with gratitude.

[Quote from Pete Porzitski]
I have said before (maybe not on this particular thread) that non-traditional unions do not inherently threaten me or my family, you and your lifestyle do not scare us.
[End Quote]

What makes you think homosexuality is a "lifestyle" I'm curious? Lifestyle implies choice and I've always found it fasinating as to how people have stumbled onto that assumption given the scientific evidence which clearly suggests otherwise.

Now, as to the marriage issue, ALL marriages should technically be civil unions (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals). The state doesn't sanctify a marriage (whatever that means) only religious institutions. I love how people try to shape this issue as though it's a religious one that churches and believers only get to decided. Marriage can be religious but it's not bound by it. Civil marriages are completely secular. It should also be understood that, while there is talk of a vote in the near future of whether this should continue, tyranny of the majority is limited under a constitutional democracy which we live under. We didn't do it for women's right to vote nor for Interracial marriage; why should this hold for same-sex marriages is beyond me.

Moreover, there is no evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage has caused havoc on society. Can anyone point to problems in areas where it has been legalized (please be clear of not falling for the 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy). In this country we live under a constitutional democracy (representative democracy = republic). As such, the Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

[Quote from Jimmy Mac]
I have yet to hear a compelling argument why my 36 year relationship with my partner in any way diminishes the value of anyone’s marriage or family stability ...
[EndQuote]
Nor will you ever hear such from me. I have said before (maybe not on this particular thread) that non-traditional unions do not inherently threaten me or my family, you and your lifestyle do not scare us. In fact, I applaud the constancy of your long-term relationship. Certainly half of all American couples, Married or otherwise, could take a tip or two from you on subordinating self to the relationship or whatever it is that works for you but not for them.

[quote]
I second the solution that has been raised more than once: anyone who wants to get married must enter into a state-granted civil union that confers all of the legal rights and privileges that currently come with marriage. Thereafter, anyone who wants a religious ceremony or the equivalent can do so with the religious group of their choice...[endQuote]
Again, agreed. Thirded even. Marriage is a bigger step than a lot of people realize. I, believing it is a Holy State designed by God, am deeply saddened by the apparently cavalier approach to Marriage practiced by so many. The "right" of Marriage - that is, the ease and thoughtlessness by which it is often entered - has trumped the "rite" of Marriage and considerably diminished its value and effectiveness as a foundation of our society. I would prefer that the state require intensive training / orientation of prospective couples, but would take something less (since such as that is highly unlikely to fly in our extra-indulgent culture).

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Mazel Tov and Congrats on your many years together.
- - A Fundie Friend

Jimmymac,
I know nothing about this justice George you speak.
But I would be willing to bet the farm that this bonehead that tries to equate the abhorrent behavior based issue in question,to an issue of skin color is not a person of color.
How is it possible for me to be so certain about that?
Because people who use minorities as trophiesare never themselves minorities.
That and the fact that I have heard many minorities express disgust in being used as a trophy to justify sodomy.

I would like to remind everyone working his/her knickers into an uproar that the May 15th California Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage is a matter of constitutional interpretation and in no way hinders any religious organization within California from establishing norms within which they choose to bless or sanctify marriages. In no way does the ruling “attack the sanctity of marriage” or the “stability of the family.”

This ruling is a clarification of the equal protection aspects of the California Constitution as it is currently written. It is the first high court to rule that the state's Constitution forbids all discrimination based on sexual orientation with the same strict type of prohibition that applies to bias based on race, sex or religion. Chief Justice Ronald George (a Republican) indicated that he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

This is a legal decision that will be played out at the ballot box and in the courts for a long time to come. Even if the advocates of same-sex marriage prevail, there is no way that result would or should result in religious entities having to change the norms for the ceremonies they choose to offer. If there was a subsequent attempt to force otherwise, I and other Californians would vigorously oppose this attempt.

However, as the law currently exists, religious proscriptions masquerading as cultural or traditions norms impose restrictions on a portion of society that does not agree with nor observe these proscriptions.

For those truly worried about the sanctity of marriage and the traditional family unit, Jon Carroll put it best in the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday, May 19th, when he wrote: “Marriage is under attack by human error and duplicity; it's under attack by deceit and lies and hypocrisy. It's under attack by physical, mental and sexual abuse. It's under attack by poverty, racism and hopelessness. That is what splits families apart.”

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why my 36 year relationship with my partner in any way diminishes the value of anyone’s marriage or family stability to the point of justifying the denial to us of equal protection under the law.

I second the solution that has been raised more than once: anyone who wants to get married must enter into a state-granted civil union that confers all of the legal rights and privileges that currently come with marriage. Thereafter, anyone who wants a religious ceremony or the equivalent can do so with the religious group of their choice. That has been done in most of Europe for many years and life as we know it has not ended.

I personally feel same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil unions, if they wish. But I do not feel that the definition of Marriage (the union of one man and one woman) should be changed.

Marriage is a pre-political institution that is grounded in the natural familial structure; by that I mean: male, female, offspring. This is where the idea of marriage originated.

Same-sex couples may be given the right to enter into legally recognized unions, but I don't feel that the definition of marriage must change in order for them to do so.

Whether you agree or not, same-sex unions are an evolution of traditional marriage, much in the same way as plural marriage.

We can change the foundation and origin of marriage no more than we can change the laws of nature.

It is no mere coincidence that the civil battle and the church battles over acceptence of homosexuality as no longer being sin are coming to the forefront,and occuring simultaneously.
This onslaught is a hydraheaded monster by design.
Anyone who claims it is not is either a liar or is just really not to bright.

For Mo:

O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, illiterate and hallucinating,
O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha greed and lustful, womanizing,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, warmongering and hateful,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from O Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMs,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
They ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms in the wrench of death.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?
Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Freedom at Last and much left to do!!!

son of god and son of democracey.

zeus was the god of the universe to the greco-romanism but yet also dionysus is the god of wine and fun while aphrodite is the godess of beauty and love .

same mentality of the 21 century (civilized )society ,even though they belive in god and want to pleasae god but in the same time they want to please every body even if its in serious contradiction to god and nature and the way life is???same mentality of the a la chart pure love god ???

sound of the creed goes togther with sound of the desires,parallel to each other and part and parcel of each other.

the 2 major disease that attacks and eats the heart of mankind is the disease of the false creed and the disease of lusting.

"I am blocked from posting on Eboo Patel's thread.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/05/schools_that_build_peace/all_comments.html

Paranoid idiot"

Anon-

Thanks for posting for me.

BTW- the idiot is Patel- the "pluralist Muslim" who does not teach pluralism in Islamic countries and so admires Christian works but fails to acknowledge them.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated :
Even after 147 comments, homosexuality is still yucky IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then don't marry someone of your own sex.
And feel free to RSVP in the negative to any same-sex wedding invitations you receive - not that I think you'll be receiving many.

I think smoking cigars is yucky. But I certainly wouldn't try to stop people who smoke cigars from being able to marry.

Even after 147 comments, homosexuality is still yucky IMO.

I am blocked from posting on Eboo Patel's thread.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/05/schools_that_build_peace/all_comments.html

Paranoid idiot

Pete Porzitski,

I don't think most same-sex couples care a rat's arse about whether this or that church considers their unions sacred. If they want their unions blessed, there are plenty of UU churches that will gladly do it.
That's not what they're pushing for by wanting the word "Marriage" to be used to describe their unions.

The word "Marriage" carries with it certain legal rights and responsibilities regarding the couples who sign marriage licenses that the words "Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership" don't.

Churches can (and many will) continue to call same-sex unions "abominations" and refuse to bless them, and they have that right. But for a governmental entity to, on the one hand, say that same-sex unions should have the same rights as heterosexual unions but refuse to call them by the same legal nomenclature leaves the door open for denying rights at a later date, because those are only for "married" people.

As long as the word "Marriage" has both a legal and a religious definition, it must be used for both same sex and hetero unions.
If you want "Marriage" to be defined solely by the church, that's fine; but in order to do that, we need to change the legal nimenclatuer of hetero unions as well.

I hav no problem with calling ALL legal unions "Civil Unions" as long as they ALL have the same attendant rights and responsibilities. Let everyone who wants to be legally joined go to the courthouse and have a judge sign off on the paperwork. If they want a religious ritual as well, fine - but the religious ritual should not be the legally binding one.

I am blocked from posting on Eboo Patel's thread. Probably because I am always pointing out that Eboo's subject matter often does NOT originate within Islam:

"(United World College) was the brainchild of German education philosopher Kurt Hahn, who also founded the Outward Bound movement."

Eboo Patel- Did you know that Kurt Hahn was a Jewish man who believed in Yeshua Ha'Mashiach (a Messianic Jew)?

"Hahn’s Jewish background and beliefs were of deep importance to him. (One of his forebears was Jacheskiel Landau, Chief Rabbi of Prague in the Eighteenth Century, whose writings on the Talmud are still taught at academies of Jewish studies.)

As Dr.Lancelot Fleming, Dean of Windsor and a friend of Hahn’s for many decades, said in his final tribute to Hahn: “Kurt made it very plain that he was proud to be of one hundred percent Jewish origin.”

Hahn joined the Anglican Church in 1945, thus embracing the total combination of Judeo-Christian faith and principles."

I beg to disagree that different cultures or even sects define marriage differently to any significant degree. I don't even know where that ergument came from, sort of a red herring as it were, designed to distract from the main point.
I'm of the opinion that the secular world would have its cake and eat it too, in that Marriage as it was constituted and designed and implemented adn propped up and legitimized by governments all these years is treated as being meaningless - yet it is important to call gay union "marriage" because it represents something sacred or respected or sanctioned or eternal or legitimate. I would suggest that people pick one concept of Marriage or another. It is either sacred and immutable or it is meaningless. Today's world is not so very different from days gone by that Marriage can be redefined to fit anyone's need du jour. (well, of course it CAN BE so redefined, but that is intellectual dishonesty)
I believe gay union is a right related to inheritance laws, taxation and insurance coverage, concepts that apply to ALL Americans, or should. I accept it as such, if anyone cares what I think. However, being an American right does not make homosexual union a hallowed rite or institution that has been ordained or all that other stuff I said earlier. Marriage is all those things, or it is meaningless. As useless as old timey stuff like this may be to anyone else, it is meaningful to me. So God bless you, or not, and best of luck to you in the future.

Ryan said: "To all you wondering whether your heterosexual marriage can withstand the onslaught of same sex marriage; I am happy to report that, even after 5 years of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts, my wife doesn't hate me any more today than she did before our neighbors John and Kevin got married.

I was thinking this was my big chance after 20 years of marriage; "Sorry dear I just don't feel our blessed union is special anymore. Good luck paying off the adjustable rate mortgage and all.""

Heh! Hi, neighbor. I was in State House on June 14th, 2007 when our legislators voted to protect marriage equality (I think my ears are still ringing from the cheering). I turned to my gay, married friend and asked, "So, is my marriage finally over NOW?"

Yeah, my husband and I are still happily married, and are thrilled that our friends, who love each other the same way we do, have at least a few of the rights and benefits that come with marriage (at least at the state level). We're happy for their kids, who were overjoyed when their parents could marry, but who went through a terrible time when the opposition was trying to amend the Constitution to take marriage equality away.

Same-sex marriage has been great for MA (though I count just over four years). I love knowing that more loving couples have more security, have had to joy of wedding, that more children have more protection, that we have less discrimination than we had before. We're here proving the fear-mongers wrong every day. My fingers are crossed that CA holds on despite an ugly fight, just like we did.

Pete said: "I believe that God's plan is as I described it. "

Which is why you should follow it. But I don't believe in any God, so I certainly don't want his blessing. And even those who believe in the same God you do, and consider sacred and holy the same book you do, don't always agree on what that plan is. We may disagree on the word "marriage. If you think it shouldn't apply to same-sex unions, we do. If not, we're on the same page. I think everyone should get the same. Same rights, same classifications. Otherwise, we're stigmatizing people legally based on religion, which isn't constitutional.

In other discussions here, I've quoted from several verses in Matthew. Jesus is very clear on marriage, divorce and remarriage, but his views aren't law. We allow women whose husbands divorce them to remarry, though Jesus says both the woman and the man marrying her are committing adultery (As in "Thou shalt not commit adultery"). But that's not law, nor should it be law over people of differing religious beliefs, and no religious beliefs.

Those who are ok with some marriage laws diverging from "God's plan" should have no problem with same-sex marriage. Seems that you either think God's plan should be law or not.

Marriage was never only for Christians, so whatever their definition (and there is no one Christian definition) it has no place in our laws.

Bottom line. Marriage is one of the last bastions of power for any priesthoods of the Cults of Abraham. Whether the myriad Protestant sects, Catholicism, or Judaism, as the numbers of "true believers" shrinks daily, this is looked on as the "last stand" for religion, and the politicians which ally with them to convince Americans to believe exceptional lies that keep money and power in the hands of a corporate elite.

I personally think marriage in modern America is a cruel joke that fails 70% of the time, and should be a civil union with a 5 yr renewable contract with no penalties for termination. However, if gays wish to suffer along with the rest of us, then secular humanist should join this battle vigorously.

The fight for marriage equality is an oportunity to make it visible to all that the Constitution of the US is a secular document and all civil institutions are just that, civil and secular. If the gov't legislates any activity, that legislation can only be secular and cannot be based on the tenets of any religion.

Our founding fathers were much smarter than the idiots and corporate hoes in the halls of Congress today.

To all you wondering whether your heterosexual marriage can withstand the onslaught of same sex marriage; I am happy to report that, even after 5 years of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts, my wife doesn't hate me any more today than she did before our neighbors John and Kevin got married.

I was thinking this was my big chance after 20 years of marriage; "Sorry dear I just don't feel our blessed union is special anymore. Good luck paying off the adjustable rate mortgage and all."

Sure I went to their backyard ceremony with the lesbian Unitarian minister and open bar (best Cosmos ever). And when they exchanged vows and had their first married kiss, I thought I would feel the previously never-ending thrill of my marriage drain away, but it didn't. In fact she got a couple tips from Kevin that have spiced things up (wink-wink).

So all you hetero guys out there who think voting for gay marriage is one way ticket back to bachelorhood; sorry. If you're lucky your wife won't compare how well John keeps his physique and helps around the house to your beer-gut and chore avoidance.

Hi Darian, and thanks for the response. I believe that God's plan is as I described it. The compromise in the Old Testament was provided to or by Moses (depending on how you view scripture) so that stiff-necked men could have their cake and eat it too - humans wanted all the blessings of God's plan but also wanted an out when following His plan became to difficult or inconvenient - such as the time when, after years in your house, your wife becomes someone you don't even like let alone love any more. Men respond to this situation by looking in the wrong direction, and should always be looking at themselves for a reason the wife became the old battle ax while in their house.
People are like this and have been for all time. that doesn't change the truth of God's plan. Early on He gives the parameters of the man/woman relationship, and Jesus confirms it in his gentle but fully truthful admonitions - See Matthew 19:8 for maybe the best discussion.
As for your comments on same-sex union, I don't see where we disagree on that - perhaps in our differing use of the term marriage. Someone else pointed out that the question regarding the use of the term (Marriage) idepends on whether you see it as a right or a rite. My take is the latter. If you think that makes me a bigot, please re-read my prior post. In a secular world, economics trump everything. Best wishes.

Issues involving civil rights and legal recognition are often very complicated and divide public opinion. True Christians are careful to maintain neutrality by avoiding political debates. (John 17:16)

Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with their Bible-trained conscience, true Christians do not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws.
Christians know our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. The opening book of the Bible tells us: “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”—Matthew 19:4.
God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires.
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality. God declared: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the righteous man Lot. “The men of Sodom . . . surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’” (Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: “The men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.”—Genesis 13:13.
The men became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males.” (Romans 1:27) They had “gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) Some may object to using the word “unnatural” to describe homosexual behavior. However, God is the final arbiter when it comes to nature. He commanded his ancient people: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”— Leviticus 18:22.
The Bible is clear: God does not approve of or condone homosexual practices. He also disapproves of people who “consent with those practicing them.” (Romans 1:32) And “marriage” cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. God’s direction that “marriage be honorable among all” precludes homosexual unions, which he considers detestable.—Hebrews 13:4.

Pete Porzitski said: "If you bother to read the text, you'll see that man-made laws allowed divorce, but God's plan is that one man and one woman make a commitment for life, period."

Who are you saying didn't "bother to read the text." Speaking only for me, I have read and studied the text.

So, according to you, God's plan is for one man and one woman (except for all that polygamy stuff he condoned in the Old Testament) to commit for life. But, as you've pointed out, that's not the law of the land, and most Christians don't want it to be. They might want one man/one woman to be law, but they sure aren't calling for a vote on the "commit for life" part.

Sometimes those who oppose same-sex marriage want God's plan made into law and sometimes they don't. It usually breaks down to only wanting laws that won't constrain them. They're fine with restricting the rights of those who are different. We've seen it time and time again throughout history. It's wrong, and it's hypocritical in the extreme.

I notice some argument over Jesus' explanations regarding divorce. If you bother to read the text, you'll see that man-made laws allowed divorce, but God's plan is that one man and one woman make a commitment for life, period. The so-called marriages going on in the USA these days seem more akin to the Muslim tradition of a marriage of convenience (aka legalized prostitution) than the model of marriage set up by God. People think the marriage day is all about them, failing to rtealize it is the day they renounce self altogether and cleave - look it up - to another. Better to not enter that state than go there and lose it due to one's own shortsightedness or emotional miscalculation or transcendent ego.
Don't blame Jesus for telling the truth. He lays it out as simply and as kindly as possible to an unbelieving, unhearing and unrepentant generation. Little wonder He wept.

Hello,
I see the gay marriage business more as a means of enfranchising a segment of the American population and providing them a legal basis for such things as health insurance, tax status and inheritance. All of these things are material and earthly benefits of the legal status that has been reserved for married heteros.
In Tennesee last year, an item was put on the ballot to amend the state constitution to indicate that marriage is, always was and ever will be a state only attainable between one man and one woman (something like that). Not only does this silly ballot measure put Tennessee in the sights of homosexual activists, but also in the crosshairs of Islamists and now the RLDS and other polygamous sects.
I say silly because I happen to know what marriage is and what it means, as do most people - straight and gay - and I believe that no matter what is said and where, marriage is what it is, and no legislation or judicial opinion will ever change that.
That does not mean that people should not have rights - I believe the Tennessee ballot item was a discriminatory attempt to preclude certain Americans from gaining some degree of security in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I am for such rights for all Americans and would prefer that such meaningless symbolism stop crowding up our ballots. This ballot measure (which passed with about 90+ percent voting yes) did nothing for married people or anyone else, except to meanly exclude some Americans from some of the blessings of our society.
So, allow all Americans who can make a commitment to another person the benefits of that commitment and stop discriminating - you don't want a constitutional fight over this issue. But also remember we're not talking about marriage. Too bad the California courts don't have the wit to understand that.

It seems that a lot of discussion has been centered around the semantics of the word "marriage". The side of this argument represented by the religious element seems to infer that by allowing gay "marriage" the government is violating christians by re-assigning a value to the word "marriage".
1. The concept of marriage and the existance of words that represent this concept have existed FAR FAR FAR long before christianity and judaism were a blip on the historical radar.
2. It is not the government's job to pander to religious groups and re-assign words because christians get upset about the values that a secular government has assigned to words. In fact, it would be un-constitutional to drop the term marriage as a legal joining just to make christians happy.

Therefore, the only solution, it seems to me, is to allow marriage of same sex couples and stop worrying about religious nut jobs who unfortunately constitute a large percentage of the constituency of some areas. Next solution, realize that religious zealots (every single one) are a larger threat to the morality that all western government is based on - truth. (look back to the enlightenment). Here is a way to solve our carbon emission problem...do away with all these "waste of space" evangelicals.

Hammerhead, Hammerhead, Hammerhead,

Sure but include the "cons" in each story.

To assist you:

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy).

Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

Concerned,
"Greatest" story indeed.
Thousands of people before and after Jesus have made the exact claims as he.
I defy you to claim he is without thousands of equivilents in his "embellishments"
His claims were so commonplace at the time of his appearance as to be unremarkable in every aspect.
Your weak attempts to claim His common story as the "greatest" is laughable.
Would you like me to list for you any of the thousands of individuals who have claimed the exact same things?

Hammerhead, Hammerhead, Hammerhead,

No, Jesus the simple preacher man did not turn the world upside down. His "biographers" did with one of the greatest embellished /part fictional stories of all time. Throw in Pontius Pilate and Constantine as necessary accessories for raising the simple preacher man to his current status, a status that continues to crumble due the historical studies of said simple preacher man in the past 200 years.

I personally have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever and have not understood the argument of why it would undermine its sanctity. That said, marriage is based in tradition and is to some degree an arbitrary arrangement. Any reason given to support gay marriage works equally well to support polygamy. Somewhere we simply have to draw an arbitrary line if for no other reason than practical considerations. Perhaps that line should be drawn where it affects the least number of people.

Concerned,
This "simple","illiterate",etc,etc,,,"preacher" has managed to turn the entire world upside down.
So much so that the same seething rage that nailed Him to a cross 2000 years ago is still trying to finish the job.
Good luck.

Anonymous,
Exactly what process or mechanisim are you refering to when you speak of christians "setting our marriage laws" (Anonymous) ?

Jesus was a simple, illiterate, uneducated, significantly embellished preacher man. He may have had some thoughts about marriage and adultery but said thoughts were not laws. The voting, educated public and their government representatives/lawyers make laws and enforce them.

Regarding your questions: The California Supreme Court has overturned that state's ban on gay marriage. Is marriage a legal right or a sacred rite? Should the state be involved in marriage? Should religious institutions?

These are important questions. As a social scientist (Ph.D., Stanford University) I have studied the role of the family and religion in society for nearly 50 years. Stanford offered excellent training during my years there, and as I have applied it to these issues, some things have become evident. I will make only a few short points.

Marriage and the family has been viewed as a sacred rite by religions generally. For thousands of years religions have given their blessing to traditional marriages and the family members that result. Society has seen the importance of this social institution and has generally supported it. In recent times, the only documented exception to this rule has been the Soviet experiment beginning in the early 1900s to abolish the family (see writings by Coser, Timasheff, Geiger and Mace among others). The experiment ended when the consequences of this action, devastating ones, became apparent. Every advanced culture that hopes to remain such should support the importance and exclusivity of the traditional family of father, mother and dependent children.

The state has a vested interest in assuring the optimum socialization of the young. The overwhelming evidence supports the traditional family as the best vehicle for this. Thus if the state wants to assure progress, strength and stability, it should be involved in preserving this institution. Traditional marriage has rightly a central, exclusive role because, when maintained properly, it maximizes the effectiveness of child socialization, improves the chance that all will be cared for economically, and sets the parameters of appropriate sexual access.

Can other alternatives be entertained? They do exist, but what are the consequences of not only allowing them but also fostering them? Will same-sex marriage weaken the importance and effectiveness of the traditional family? When alternatives demand legalization as they are doing, then equal protection as enshrined in the 14th amendment will eventually mandate that any and all forms be allowed? What of polygamy? What of incestuous marriage? What about pedophiles and small children? How about marriage to animals? We cannot, once we open the door to some, deny any of these other forms on constitutional grounds.

The lessons of history are clear. Where traditional marriage and the family are given exclusivity, society is much better off by almost any measurable criterion.

Hammerhead, you must have missed earlier when I said that same thing. Yeah, I've got it right. Too bad Jesus didn't. He branded such women as adulterers and further stigmatized them by making them undesirable for remarriage.

Do you think those women truly committed adultery? Jesus said they did, but do you think a woman whose husband divorced her committed adultery? And since you seem to approve of the bible setting our laws on marriage, should we then make it illegal for those women to remarry? And make it illegal for men to marry them?

Do you want the bible to determine our laws on marriage or not?

"though no fault of her own"
(Darian)

Congratulations, you are starting to get some things right.

Hammerhead, Jesus said she committed adultery. Through no fault of her own, but Jesus said she was an adulterer. And any man who remarries her is an adulterer. Nice of Jesus to make her tainted goods.

The definition of "adulterer" is one who commits adultery. Even trying a semantic argument, you're failing.

You rightly have a problem with the woman being called an adulterer. But your beef is with Jesus, not me. But, hey, you treat him the same as me. You misquote and twist our words. That should tell you something.

Darian,
Wrong again.
Matthew 5:32 goes even further in condemning the male than Matthew 19,condemning the man on two points.
Condemning him first for commiting his own adulterey and then condemning him for what he has "causeth her" to do:

"That whosoever shall put away his wife,saving for the cause of fornication,CAUSETH her to commit adultery..." (Matthew 5:32)

Jesus's absolution of her, and double condemnation of the responsible male clear and comprehendible to anyone with at least a fourth grade education.

How compassionate of you to find the woman guilty in light of Jesus's clearly placing the onus and cause on the male.
Good looking out for the woman's intrest.

Hammerhead said:

"Matthew 19:9 never calls the woman an "adulterer"."

That's why I didn't say it did. I've quoted more than one verse and am discussing based on those.

Jesus says in this verse I also quoted, Matthew 5:32: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Hammerhead said:
"How thoughtful of you to call her an adulterer,when Jesus has not."

See Matthew 5:32. That's Jesus saying a woman who has been divorced by her husband has committed adultery. She has.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't put much stock in the bible. But most of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes back to the bible, so I know it well. I'm starting to suspect I know it better than you do. But it has no place in making laws that govern those who do not believe in it, or even those who want to follow its rules willingly.

"You can't dispute that Jesus said a woman whose husband divirced her (except in case of fornication) was an adulterer...
(Darian May 25,8:16 PM)

Darian,
Your woefully nebulous understanding did not even allow you to get this much right.
Matthew 19:9 never calls the woman an "adulterer".

"Whosoever shall put away his wife,except it be for fornication,and shall marry another,committeth adultery,and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth committ adultery."
(Matthew 19:9)

In fact this passage specifically singles out the males as "whosoever....his wife" and "whoso marrieth her" as the adulterers.
Jesus specifically excluded the female.
How thoughtful of you to call her an adulterer,when Jesus has not.
A small detail lost on you in your nebulous zeal.
Its not so much a matter of disputing you,as it is a perpetual straightening out of your puddin brained biblical perceptions.

Hammerhead, you can keep insulting me as an attempted diversion, but that only highlights your inability to dispute the verses, to dispute the hypocrisy.

Thank you for consistently proving my points.

Darian,
I have seen people as far behind the eight ball on biblical discernment as yourself,but I must admit you are currently pushing the envelope.
Allow me to educate you.
The terrible injustice being done to women in Jesus's day,which was at the heart of the passage in question, is that it had gotten to the point that when husbands grew tired of their wives,they would physically carry around with them a "writ of divorcement" in anticipation of the next false move their wife would make,(burn the steak,forget to do the dishes,etc,etc,,,,)and then be rid of them. A fate as bad or equal to death for a woman in that day.
How thoughtful of you to specifically mention your regard for what these particular women of that time were facing.
The compounded ignorance,and nebulous understanding, that would take Jesus's treatment of this specific issue,these women were up againest,and feebly try to extrapolate it to mean that every other reprehensible human behavior(assault, child abuse,etc,etc,,) that Jesus also clearly addressed,and condemned, in other passages is somehow not eligible for divorce as far as Jesus is concerned,is as bad as I have ever seen.
On a positive note,I must commend you on your honesty.
I am quite certain that no one would intentionally misrepresent themselves as being so biblically ignorant.

OT. Well, looky here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502289.html?hpid=topnews

Lest any of you rational thinkers out there try to trumpet this as yet another success for the scientific method, I'll have you know that I prayed to my imaginary friend Winkie that this would happen. And it did. So there.

Winkie knows him some Mars launches.

Video Divine Impulses: Sally Quinn interviews Peter Gomes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/12/19/VI2007121900684.html

Video Divine Impulses: Sally Quinn interviews Archbishop Tutu

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/12/03/VI2007120301946.html

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's thoughts on the subject of homosexuals: (Video also interview with AB Tutu 'Divine Impulses' by Sally Quinn on Faith Forum)

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/desmond_tutu/2007/02/blessed_are_the_persecuted/all_comments.html

Jesus was a simple, illiterate, uneducated, significantly embellished preacher man. He may have had some thoughts about marriage but said thoughts were not laws. The voting, educated public and their government representatives/lawyers make laws and enforce them.

Hammerhead, Jesus could have said that women should also be allowed to divorce their husbands instead of branding as an adulterer any woman who had the misfortune to have a husband who decided to divorce her (except with fornication...I'll state it once here, but it applies every time I mention divorce). He cut her chances of remarriage, didn't he, by also branding as an adulterer any man who would subsequently marry her. And all she might have done wrong is have a husband who divorced her.

Do you agree with Jesus? Are divorced women adulterers? Are the men who marry them? I've quoted the verses; he's very clear. Should the laws reflect that?

You said, " Your assertion that this fact tells us of Jesus's condoning of wife beatng." Again, you're misquoting me. Intentionally, I suspect. I didn't say Jesus condoned wife-beating. I said he didn't allow for divorce if a woman's husband was beating her. And that's true. I guess since you can't show that I'm wrong, you have to misquote me. I really hope you think hard about what it means that you repeatedly stoop to dishonesty when faced with some hard truths and questions. Do you disagree with Jesus and think a woman should be able to divorce her abusive husband?

You've helped make my point again. Christians who oppose same-sex marriage because of the bible are hypocrites unless they also oppose current US divorce laws. Especially if they've divorced and/or remarried, except in case of "fornication."

You mention proposed legislation to make divorce harder. Legislation, not a popular vote, right? Not that a popular vote would come out in favor of making divorce harder to get, but still...notice that no one wants to vote on straight marriage. No one's trying to make divorce laws comply with Jesus' standards, not even close. Toughening current laws isn't in the ballpark, and only a few fringe groups are even lobbying for that.

Again, you prove my point. It's wrong to vote on rights.

Darian,
I told you you would only makes matters worse.
Women did not divorce their husbands in Jesus's day.
Your assertion that this fact tells us of Jesus's condoning of wife beatng is leaving little doubt,as if there was any left,as to your inches deep miles wide biblical understanding Jesus.
And I can tell this will be a real revelation to you,but legislation has been proposed in different states to make hollywood style,quickie divorce not so easy to get. And believe it or not spousal abuse was not even an issue.
And if that is not enough to blow your skirt up in the air ,try this,even though the bible played no role in the legislation whatsoever,christians were actually able to vote on it based upon their own particular beliefs.
You see Darian people who are not even christians are somehow able to recognize the negative impact of divorce as a first choice strategy of solving problems,while understanding the right for the voting democratic govermental process to be the final arbitrator of any changes to be made.
Do you think they should have made these changes differently?
Really?
And likewise it is the case with homosexuality, people do not have to be christians to recognize it as abhorrent behavior.
I know christians are a popular target these days but abhorrent behavior is,and always will be abhorrent behavior to all sorts of folks.

Hammerhead,

No answers? My questions are logical and based on both current law and accurately quoted, pertinent Scripture.

You can't dispute that Jesus made no allowances for a woman to divorce her husband. Even if he were beating her. You can't dispute that Jesus said a woman whose husband divorced her (except in cases of "fornication") was an adulterer, as was any man who later married her.

Should the laws be changed to reflect Jesus' words as I've quoted and paraphrased above?

Darian,
Stacking more implausible premises on top of the implausible non-sensical premises you have already claimed for yourself is only going to make matters worse.
You seem to resent the fact that goverment is putting civil same-sex marriage to a vote at all?
Yes? No?
If not by vote,exactly what process would be your ideal means by which civily ordained marriages become lawful,and would any citizen who could be shown to be a christian be excluded from such a process?

And just for you, Hammerhead, another verse:

"Matthew 19: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Those who believe the bible should keep tax-paying, law-abiding same-sex couples from legally marrying, should it also keep a woman whose husband has divorced her (except in cases of "fornication) from remarrying? And keep men from remarrying her?

(Whoops, I said "law-abiding." Strike that. Criminals, even serial killers, in prison can get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.)

No feeble games needed, Hammerhead. I leave those to you. I am saying something that is true, and anyone who knows the bible knows it. If those calling for the bible's "definition" of marriage weren't cherrypicking hypocrites, they'd be trying to outlaw divorce and remarriage, except as Jesus allowed for.

Did Jesus say divorce was acceptable if a man beat his wife? I can't find anything to say a woman could divorce her husband at all. Seems only the man could. If there's a verse that says she could, please share it. Should women have no legal recourse to divorce her husband, as per Jesus?

Jesus said this in Matthew 5:32: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

There are other verses along the same lines, but let's start with one.

If you think the bible has a place in determining who can and can't marry, do you agree that no woman who has been divorced by her husband, unless there was "fornication" involved, should be forbidden to remarry? Now, this might be a loving, blameless wife who wanted to stay married. But according to Jesus, she's an adulterer. Do you think it should be illegal for men to marry any divorced woman, except if the divorce was because of "fornication?"

It's hypocrisy if you think same-sex marriage should be illegal because of the bible, but don't thing laws governing divorce and remarriage should be changed to reflect what the bible says.

Darian,
Your question to me made no mention of any "circumstances" under which the bible permitted divorce.
Write that down.
You made a blanket statement,void of any "circmstances",implying the bible's zero tolerance on divorce.
Write that down.
Would you like me to quote you on that?
This feeble attempt at biblical deception is more of the same childish game you have been playing in refusing to concede the church's inalienable right reject gay marriage under any and all conceivable goverment mandates,because we just don't know how "wild", "bad","crazy" etc,etc,,,said goverment mandate could be.
A non-sensical implausable premise that would have any self-respecting five year old scratching their head.
You are nothing if not consistant.

Hammerhead, you should stop making assumptions. I'm quite educated about what the bible says. I know exactly what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage. Most if it is considered adultery, and God made a commandment against adultery. So, if you think the bible has any place in making laws regarding marriage, surely you think divorce and remarriage should be illegal, except in the limited cases Jesus mentioned. Jesus didn't speak against same-sex unions, but he did speak out quite harshly about divorce and remarriage.

Do you think we should only allow divorce to be legal under the circumstances Jesus allowed for? Or do you think the bible shouldn't be the determining factor in making laws about divorce and remarriage?

After all, if some people want the bible to determine our laws on marriage, they should be willing to give up the legal right to divorce and remarry, except as allowed by Jesus and God.

Why the double standard?

Darian,
You should educate yourself on the bible before you attempt to talk intelligently about it.
Jesus gave the guidelines under which a divorce is permitted by God.
I take it you are unfamiler with that particular chapter and verse?

Hammerhead, I simply won't go as far as you seem to need me to go and make an absolute statement. I have said that I have no problem with churches not performing same-sex marriages, though they are legal. So, rather than engage in your wild hypotheticals and scare tactics, I limit my comments to current law. "Any civil law" is simply too broad.

We've had some bad laws, laws that I have trouble believing this country could have ever allowed. I'm disappointed that a majority of voters in many states has voted for discrimination, and have mostly done so because of religion, despite the Founding Fathers' intention that church and state remain separate. In 2000, in Alabama, forty percent of voters wanted to keep a miscegenation law on the books. Historically, opposition to interracial marriage is linked for many people to the bible.

So "any civil law" is too broad for me in a discussion. You get reasonable and stop attributing to me things I have no said, and we can talk.

But, hey, focusing on imaginary problems with what I've posted saves you from having to face the hard questions I've asked. Like why any religion should trump another, and what place any of them have in making laws that govern us all. It saves you from having to face the problem of opposing legal same-sex marriage but being in favor of divorce and remarriage. I wonder if you're a Christian, and believe the bible (selectively, if you support legal divorce and remarriage), or if you are some other religion.

Darian,
That you have "no problem" with a law that "doesn't compel churches to marry same sex couples" is exactly what you said.
That you can offer no reasonable explanation on your inability to state your having "no problem" with a law that would "compel" churches marry them is what has you currently vexed.

Hammerhead:
"If you know that you have "no problem" with a law that "dosen't compel churches to marry same sex couples" it stands to reason you know if you have "no problem" with the establishment of a law that does compel churches?"

Funny that you don't phrase it as a question, but use a question mark. And it's not exactly what I said, but you seem unable to read actual words and grasp their meaning without trying to bend them to your preconceived ideas. I wish you'd try to get over that, because we could actually have a good discussion if you would.

Anyway, you didn't ask if I would support or oppose a law to compel churches to perform same-sex marriages. This is what you initially said:

"However,it is most curious to me that you never affirm the right of any church to reject such ceremonies no matter what civil rights laws are established in the future?"

You can't seem to keep track of what you yourself ask and say. I've clarified several times that I simply feel that's broad. But at least we've established that you don't know of any attempts to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. Fear-mongering, plain and simple.

"Sort of the same way night follows day."

In your mind, perhaps. But it seems you are reading far too much into what I say and making some wild assumptions about what I believe.

"This penchant you have for placing the church's right to reject gay marriage subservient to whatever the current law is"

I'll stop you right there. I said nothing of the kind. You've gone beyond twisting my words into some sort of fantasy land. I said that current law doesn't compel churches in MA to perform same-sex marriages though same-sex marriage is legal, and I have no problem with that. I've been very clear, but I haven't said what you want me to. So you instead claim that I have. Cheap and dishonest, but sadly, about what I'd expect now that we've chatted for a bit.

"And yes I think divorce, remarriage should be legal."

So, if you think divorce and remarriage should be legal, do you agree that the bible should not be considered in making laws about marriage? Because God and Jesus were very specific about both of those, except in certain cases, are adultery, something so bad there's a commandment against it. Jesus was silent about same-sex unions, but he did speak against divorce, remarriage, and adultery.

Many churches are fine with same-sex marriage and want to perform them. They also believe such marriages should be legal. Why should your religion trump theirs? Why should any religion have a place in making laws that govern people of all religions and religion? That's pretty unAmerican, considering what our Constitution says.

Darian,
If you know that you have "no problem" with a law that "dosen't compel churches to marry same sex couples" it stands to reason you know if you have "no problem" with the establishment of a law that does compel churches?
Sort of the same way night follows day.
How telling it is that you remain vapor-locked, unable to speak what is so obvious.
This penchant you have for placing the church's right to reject gay marriage subservient to whatever the current law is,and your ability to see "no problem" with said current law,rather than acknowleding a perpetual "no problem" with the churches inalienable right no matter what law is established is sufficient cause for an "alarmist" posture.
And yes I think divorce, remarriage should be legal.
And if the next question is should the unborn be murdered the answer is no.

Here in the Netherlands we have the perfect solution to America's soul searching on this issue. The only 'marriage' ceremony that creates a marriage is the civil ceremony. Everyone must be married by civil ceremony. Those who choose to, have an additional religious ceremony, generally following the civil ceremony and prior to the festivities. This creates one marriage standard for every citizen with the choice for an additional religious ceremony being left up to the spiritual choice of the individual. This has always been the case and had nothing to do with the acceptance several years ago of same-sex marriage. This custom is a wonderful example of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately religion in America is perhaps too intertwined with 'state' to ever achieve such a thing.

Hammerhead, we've had some pretty terrible and crazy laws before, so I am simply not going to state my opinion based on "any civil law." However, the Massachusetts law making same-sex marriage doesn't compel churches to marry same-sex couples, and I have no problem with that. Neither does California law. So far, so good. I expect state and eventually federal laws allowing same-sex marriage will be similar, so I would still have no problem with churches being able to decide.

If that doesn't go far enough for you, feel free to use it as a dodge to avoid commenting on whether or not you feel divorce and remarriage should be legal. I've seen some pretty extreme avoidance tactics when I ask that question, even from people who say the bible should have a place in making our laws.

Darian,
My "wildest imagination" cannot conceive of any law or civil right established that would trump any churches right to reject gay ceremonies.
Any.
Can your "wildest imaginaton" conceive any?

Do "Abrahamic" gays follow the Sixth and Ninth Commandments????

Hammerhead, no fear here. I'd watch those assumptions. Now, you said:

"Now I have already shared my opinion on this subject, that any church should have the freedom to reject gay ceremonies no matter what civil laws are established.

Why are you afraid to likewise state your opinion concerning the churches freedom to reject such ceremonies?"

You said "any civil law." I simply can't make a blanket statement like that. As I have said before, no telling what your imagination could come up with for what laws the future holds. I will go as far to say that I have no problem with churches in Massachusetts refusing to marry same-sex couples under the current law, which is that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. Neither do any of my gay friends. Neither does the gay rights organization I work for. Just as we don't object to Catholic churches refusing to marry certain groups.

But speaking of law, do you think that divorce and remarriage should be illegal?

Darian,
I certainly can,and will entertain and submit my opinion on any various and sundry subject you wish to introduce next.
One at time.
Now I have already shared my opinion on this subject, that any church should have the freedom to reject gay ceremonies no matter what civil laws are established.
Why are you afraid to likewise state your opinion concerning the churches freedom to reject such ceremonies?
As soon as you do what I have already done on this subject,we can move on to whatever other subject you would like to introduce next.

Hammerhead, I forgot to ask.

Do you think divorce should be illegal?

Do you think remarriage should be illegal?

As you asked me, could you please clearly state your position? Or would you rather not?

Hammerhead, you said: "I hear you say there have been no attempts to force gay marriage on any church." You say that like you don't believe me. Do you have knowledge of such attempts? Same-sex marriage is law here and has been for over four years, and churches remain free to marry or not marry as they choose. Gay couples get married in civil ceremonies and/or religious ceremonies, just like straight people. And just like straight people, they have to find churches willing to marry them. Like straight people, they sometimes find churches won't marry them. It's no different.

I'm happy to answer any clearly articulated questions, but I won't engage in wild speculation and hypotheticals. "Any civil law" is broad and I can only guess as to the limits of your imagination and fear-mongering. If you'd care to be specific about what proposed civil laws you're speaking of, we might be better able to have a conversation.

Darian,
I hear you say there have been no attempts to force gay marriage on any church.
However,it is most curious to me that you never affirm the right of any church to reject such ceremonies no matter what civil rights laws are established in the future?
Could you please clearly state your position?
Or would you rather not?

Hammerhead, the expiration date on your particular brand of alarmist nonsense is approaching. The longer same-sex marriage is legal in various parts of the globe, including some parts of the US, the harder it gets to sling such hateful BS. Over four years of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

Churches have always been able to pick and choose who to marry. That's not changing. Here in MA, there are plenty of churches that welcome GLBT people and conduct same-sex marriages. There have been no attempts to get churches to perform same-sex marriage.

Honestly, in a sea of ridiculous, bigoted posts, yours stands out as one of the worst. "These people" indeed.

Make no mistake.
These people are not desirous of simply being able to have a marriage conducted by the justice of the peace.
At its very core is the desire to force their religious beliefs on religious institutions.
They want to force (under threat of lawsuit,jail, loss of tax exempt status,etc,etc,,,if necessary) their religious beliefs on religious institutions that teach such beliefs to be abhorrent.
This is nothing more than forced religion by court order.
That is the goal.

Pottery :
"walter :""I think this whole ordeal is stupid. No one has the right to tell two people who they can and can't love....Being Gay does not hinder a person's faith in God....""

Wrong, read Romans 1:21-32 and note how Gay and lesbianism affect there're relationship with God..........pretty deadly to say the least, period.

Kaizot : "My recollection of the major teachings of christianity include love, tolerance, humility, generosity, and patience.

Where are those basic tenants on this issue?

And if you dare quote laviticus, you better do some reading cause you have a few lambs to slaughter."

I suggest you read the New Testament and then come back to comment.

Civics teacher, "Everyone would do well to put their Bible's away and read more about logical reasoning before engaging in this debate. The result would either be a more logical and civil debate, or the debate would stop altogether."

Ironic that you would want the Bible out of the discussion, it states clearly that homosexuality and lesbianism is sin and will be judged by God and judged pretty harshly as it says in:

Romans 1:21-31 (NIV)
(21)For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22)Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23)and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

(24)Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (25)They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

(26)Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27)In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

(28)Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (29)They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, (30)slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; (31)they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.(32)Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

But hey, you got to admit that it is pretty amazing that a book written over 2,000 years ago addresses this very issue and how it came about and how it will end, isn't it?

Those who talk about where the term "marriage" came from would do well to lookup what marriage entailed previously. A study of what once was considered "marriage" shows how far it has evolved, and evolved or the better:

First, when a man and woman were married the woman became the property of the man. This is no longer the case, and only a deranged lunatic would think the "tradition" of the woman being the man's personal property is proper.

Second, "traditional" marriage did not allow divorce for any reason. Once again, only a deranged lunatic would think this "tradition" is something we should continue.

There are many other aspects of "traditional" marriage that have changed, all to expand the civil and legal rights of people.

Those who argue that if we legalize gay marriage it will lead to incestuous marriage, child/adult marriage, and human/animal marriage are using a logical fallacy. In logic, this is referred to as an Appeal to ridicule. This is most often used by individuals who do not have a serious and rational basis for their disagreement.

Everyone would do well to put their Bible's away and read more about logical reasoning before engaging in this debate. The result would either be a more logical and civil debate, or the debate would stop altogether.

I would just like to clarify. In my last entry, when I refer to "Christians," I do not mean all Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage. I know plenty of Christians, including religious leaders, who support marriage equality. As support for same-sex marriage grows, the number of Christians supporting or not opposing same-sex marriage grows, too. I've had several friends come around in the last few years.

Pottery said: "It may be a sin, but divorce was/is legal, under certain circumstances."

That's my point. Divorce is legal. And Christians are fine with that. They get them all the time. They remarry, too. They say they want God's "definition" of marriage to be law (except for his approval of polygamy) but God and Jesus were against divorce and remarriage in all but a few cases. A woman whose husband divorced her was an adulterer. She may have done nothing wrong. Even if her husband was abusing her, Jesus and God say if she divorces, she's breaking the commandment against adultery. That's something God said about marriage. If you want gay marriage to be illegal, you should want divorce and remarriage to be illegal as well, except under the very limited circumstances Jesus outlined. Why don't you? Why aren't you on a divorce support board railing and ranting about all the sinners destroying society?

Your religion has no place in laws that govern all of us. Especially if you only want laws against those things you never want to do anyway.

"Today we have the call for gay marriage, but if marriage is just legal (and the notion of the sacred declines) why exactly is it we should not go further and allow a woman to marry a donkey or a man a sheep or for that matter object if a man wants to marry a little girl or boy?"

Cause not everyone, most especially the United States legal code does not think along those lines?

The only people who believe fair and equal marriage laws are in any way opposed to the sacred, without which there would be chaos, ...are those who believe so *within* their religions.

Neither the law nor the real world operate that way.

In civil law, marriage is a legal contract.

Donkeys, sheep, and children are not legally-capable of entering into such contracts.

Period.

"Darian : Every Christians who demands that the law make gay marriage illegal but isn't demanding the same for divorce and remarriage is guilty of hypocrisy."

It may be a sin, but divorce was/is legal, under certain circumstances. It shouldn't be an easy proposition.

"walter :

I think this whole ordeal is stupid. No one has the right to tell two people who they can and can't love....Being Gay does not hinder a person's faith in God...."

I am not confusing love, and marriage. Love anyone you want.

Daniel said: "Is marriage a legal right or sacred rite?"

We heterosexuals get to decide that for ourselves. Though the government only recognizes the legal part. So, for the government, religion isn't a factor. Some people choose to also have a religious ceremony, but without the legal part, they wouldn't be legally married.

You said you don't know why you have reservations about gay marriage, then you spewed some alarmist nonsense. And it is nonsense. Four years of gay marriage here in MA has only resulted in thousands of children being more protected and happier because their parents were afforded partial marriage equality, and thousands of loving committed couples joyously taking part in the "legal right" and/or the "sacred rite." Just like straight people do every day.

Sometimes those couples had their loving, happy children with them when they wed. They'd all been waiting so long. Some of those couples had been together decades.

Why not get to know some of the people you want to blame for society's ills (real and imagined):

http://www.massequality.org/action/shareyourstory/

There are some beautiful stories there. Of course, they might make you think a little, and challenge your ideas. But since you don't even understand yourself your "reservations" maybe you should take a closer look at the reality of marriage equality.

A gay man and a gay woman have the unalienable right to get married.
And civil unions are for everyone, regardless of gender.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"

Is marriage a legal right or sacred rite?

This is the question. And it obviously parallels the question of whether morality depends on God or not--or the question of whether morality just becomes relative without a belief in God.

With the decline of religion and the increase of the secular state (nation) we can imagine that marriage will increasingly become a legal matter rather than sacred, and furthermore that there will be no sudden jump from the sacred to legal except in those states (nations) which are simpler than the United States and not composed of multiple states within an overarching federal unity.

Within the United States we can expect states first to weigh in on the matter, and this will be complicated because in some states the pressure will be to keep marriage tied to the sacred while in other states religion will not be so great a force. But the trend does seem to be toward marriage becoming a legal matter rather than sacred so we should concentrate on exactly what that means.

Today we have the call for gay marriage, but if marriage is just legal (and the notion of the sacred declines) why exactly is it we should not go further and allow a woman to marry a donkey or a man a sheep or for that matter object if a man wants to marry a little girl or boy? What combinations do we allow and not allow and why? Today we are told that gay people should be accepted as gay because they have a genetic tendency toward homosexuality. But will any gay person argue for child molestation by saying a child molester has a genetic tendency toward such? And if a gay person will recoil in horror from such a question, why? Why exactly when the sacred is irrelevent and we are living in a world of do as you go morality?

The situation is further complicated because we seem to be living in a world in which there is increased pressure to mix and match everything, as if the sacred is changing from a particular type of order to a convulsion of the breast and hope that by mixing this with that (no matter what they are) we will achieve something more hopeful and miraculous. We see it with the recently deceased artist Rauschenburg. We see it with eclecticism in music. And we see it looming terrifyingly with the advances in genetics. It seems the human race is throwing itself into the contemplation of all possible combinations, no matter how perverted, in an attempt at the full range of the combinatorial.

We can speak of marriage between man and woman as something of the standard of the combinatorial, but when such a marriage becomes a legal matter rather than sacred we are entering something of a social stress point and we do not know if society will settle down into a new form of the combinatorial and sacred or return to the old or even know in fact when or if society will settle down at all. In our rapidly accelerating times we might move to gay marriage and then all sorts of other partnerships and then to mixings of genetic material we cannot now even imagine. Society a kaleidoscope which turns toward a pattern (unlike in a regular kaleidoscope) we do not have the brains to even comprehend.

Hell, I have no idea why I have reservations toward gay marriage, for this is just the beginning. I especially fail to understand why I have reservations after having read Nabokov and Jean Genet. Not only is gay marriage here to stay, we can expect all sorts of legal combinations and then children which to us will be genetic freaks.

But the human race is determined to be a circus....

Sex is a great gift from God, the gods and/or Mom Nature. It is the improper use of said gift that results in part of the "yucky factor", i.e STDs to include AIDS/HIV and fetal transfer that concerns everyone, Abrahamics, Atheists and et al.

God isn't responsible for what men do with the free will he gave them.

I'm a bit worried. God obviously hates queers, because they are all so miserable and disease-ridden. And they can't find any long-term relationships. But I don't know why me, too. I try to earn a living as a driving tutor, but I can't make a living. And why does he hate the Tutsis in Rwanda who are Christian, when the Hutus are animist? And what's the problem with the guys in Burma who never asked to be ruled by a military regime, but they're still dying since they can't get any water or shelter? Why's He hurting us like this?

I think this whole ordeal is stupid. No one has the right to tell two people who they can and can't love....Being Gay does not hinder a person's faith in God....

IF two people who are truly in Love and want to get married then they should....Its not up to the state or government to decide......there should be equal rights...Being gay is not a sin any more then any other sin in the bible....

We shoud not judge others Love for each other.
Plus, it's wrong....I am happily married and I have three Kids....gay marriage does not affect me as a married person at all...that is stupid....

For all of you who object to this gay marriage and ordination issue needs to get over it and get used to it. IF I recall History. It was not long agao that we denied African Americans civil rights, for what!!! over Color of Skin.

Woman used to not be allowed to Vote.....Now look at it now...We have a Woman and a African American running for President and they both have a 100% chance of winning...

Who knows we could have a African American Woman who is gay running for President one day...that would be interesting....I'd vote for her....

Get a life..Stop judging others....ITS Wrong!

GaryD said, "If you get married by the government rather than by a church you have a civil union rather than a marriage. "

Nope. I'm married. I'm a woman married to a man, who had no religious ceremony, no mention of any deity in my vows. The ceremony was completely civil. I'm married. The religion part is optional. But not the legal part. If you think the religious part should "define" marriage, just have that. Drop the legal, give up all the benefits that come with legal marriage, and call yourself married. The government won't. They'll call me married, though.

I've lived in a place where same-sex marriage is legal. I have a lot of gay married friends. It's been good for Massachusetts and hasn't changed my marriage a bit. It's a good one, though. For those who are afraid of what someone else's marriage will do to theirs, I'd say that's your issue.

Pottery said:
"As a Christian, the Bible defines marriage."

Then Christians should follow the bible as it defines and governs marriage. Or as they believe it does, since you all don't agree on much the bible has to say. The rest of us shouldn't have to be bound by the rules of your religion, especially as a group, you are glaringly selective about those you want made into law. Have you even heard of freedom of religion? Separation of church and state?

Any of you trying to make divorce and remarriage illegal? Jesus said those are adultery (hey...its so bad God made a commandment against it. No commandment against being gay), except in cases of "fornication." Unless you're a woman, in which case, you are out of luck either way. Are you willing to make the law follow the bible and make illegal divorce and remarriage for women, and for men if one's spouse cheats?

Every Christians who demands that the law make gay marriage illegal but isn't demanding the same for divorce and remarriage is guilty of hypocrisy.

"Ask a guy with a wife and children why he is involved in a homosexual relationship. May God have mercy!"

Okay, let's call up Ted Haggard and ask him. I'd say the same thing about Senator Larry Craig, but he's still in the bathroom.

whm99 :

Yes, it is something special to me. The bond of man and woman, offspring and family is as old as history itself. The joining in "matrimony" of people of the same sex, is a corruption of the principle.

Whether you think it comes from the divine, or not, you cannot deny that. Marriage is the bond that makes society, not mutual masturbation and self gratification.

whm99 :

Yes, it is something special to me. The bond of man and woman, offspring and family is as old as history itself. The joining in "matrimony" of people of the same sex, is a corruption of the principle.

Whether you think it comes from the devine, or not, you cannot deny that. Marriage is the bond that makes society, not mutual masturbation and self gratification.

Impressive piece of research scholarship just below, even by this old doper's low standards.

Suppporting our innate prejudices, fears and phobias by parsing quips from the internet has never been easier - I suppose we should expect to see alot more of this as McCain's campaign gets under way. He's got his own natural-born swiftboater in place right here.

What's next from the 'how I got religion without being religious guy' ??

Impressive piece of research scholarship just below, even by this old doper's low standards.

Suppporting our innate prejudices, fears and phobias by parsing quips from the internet has never been easier - I suppose we should expect to see alot more of this as McCain's campaign gets under way. He's got his own natural-born swiftboater in place right here.

What's next from the 'how I got religion without being religious guy' ??

To Google we go:

epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html

Excerpt:

" First, homosexuality in many forms pervaded the ancient Near East, and with more openness beyond Egypt. As long as persons got married and had families, homoerotic activity was generally accepted as part and parcel of life. Still, there was a certain stigma attached to a man who took the passive, womanly role in a sexual relationship.

Recently:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

Excerpt:
Edward Westermark observed that "it is a common belief among the Arabic-speaking mountaineers of Northern Morocco that a boy cannot learn the Koran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him. So also an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master."(9)

And these comments by the author of the article: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

“The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments and ethical monotheism.

See the added Torah qualifications by the author, Dennis Prager

And from:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_14

“Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist. But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

"Henceforth, those couples that have been joined together in non-holy matrimony by a civil authority may no longer refer to themselves as 'married'.

Unless their coupling has been validated and blessed as 'under God' by an appropriate and properly sanctified religious authority, they shall in the future be required by law to refer to themselves as being 'unionized' rather than 'married'."

While this is somewhat ambiguous, and could be construed as the couple in question being affiliated with the AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers, or various trade unions, it is felt to be preferrable to using the term 'civil' in the required terminology - why, we can only guess.

Wasn't this something that our stellar authority on marriage, John McCain, just suggested on the Ellen Degeneres show?? I didn't see the whole thing.

Leave it to the republicans to confuse the hell out of everything they touch........

"Henceforth, those couples that have been joined together in non-holy matrimony by a civil authority may no longer refer to themselves as 'married'.

Unless their coupling has been validated and blessed as 'under God' by an appropriate and properly sanctified religious authority, they shall in the future be required by law to refer to themselves as being 'unionized' rather than 'married'."

While this is somewhat ambiguous, and could be construed as the couple in question being affiliated with the AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers, or various trade unions, it is felt to be preferrable to using the term 'civil' in the required terminology - why, we can only guess.

Wasn't this something that our stellar authority on marriage, John McCain, just suggested on the Ellen Degeneres show?? I didn't see the whole thing.

Leave it to the republicans to confuse the hell out of everything they touch........

GARYD :
Wrong lep. If you get married by the government rather than by a church you have a civil union rather than a marriage. Such civil unions carry all the rights of a church wedding which is a marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a civil ceremony. Get the difference?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal document issued to me and my husband by the Clerk of Court's office and signed by the Justice of the Peace says "Certificate of Marriage," not "Certificate of Civil Union."

I think the time has come to ask that all too important question - as a government sanctioned legal enterprise should the state be involved in marriage - answer, no. With the divorce rate to consider as evidence, let marriage rest where it belongs between two people and their faith tradition if they have one.

My recollection of the major teachings of christianity include love, tolerance, humility, generosity, and patience.

Where are those basic tenants on this issue?

And if you dare quote laviticus, you better do some reading cause you have a few lambs to slaughter.

I just don't understand how this is even an issue. Plenty of people do plenty of things that are disgusting to plenty of people. But we don't have laws against plenty of those things.

There is a fundamental tenant of a democratic society whereby majority rule cannot just make laws against minority groups. To do so without any other explanation than 'Well I don't like it' is a serious misjustice of our constitution.

Those who advocate that point of view will have a hard time if/when they become a minority and have their rights infrenged based upon thier own precident.

we are suffering from some atrocious logic here.

Curious: that's not the text of a civil marriage - the point is that your church can do as it pleases.

PV: there is no biological definition of a word. gays don't really care about the word anyway, as long as it has the same legal meaning under state law. suppose we just made them say it as if it were in ""?

lots of you: so you think homosexuality is disgusting or whatever. what's that got to do with anything? outlawing gay marriage while allowing civil unions (or not) is not going to reduce the number of gay partners or gay sexual activity one iota.

Wrong lep. If you get married by the government rather than by a church you have a civil union rather than a marriage. Such civil unions carry all the rights of a church wedding which is a marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a civil ceremony. Get the difference?

moody :
First of all we need to see that word, “marriage" or "marry" originates from where? It originates from religion. And all religions unanimously describe it as spiritual binding between man and women only. And all Abrahamic religions disapprove gay or lesbian relationships or binding. So, if somebody wants to bind them self in the same sex relationship then WHY insist on word marriage (or in other words seek religious approval)??? If you can choose to live your way, then why ask religions to change their meanings or ways according to your rules! If you have the legal right, YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RELIGIONS ARE ALSO LEGALLY BOUND TO CHANGE THEIR MEANINGS TOO!!----------------------------------------------------------------
No one is asking religions to change their definition of the word "marriage."
But that particular word has a legal definition as well as a religious one, and the legal one confers certain legal rights that are not conferred by the legal term "civil union" or "domestic partnership."
It's the LEGAL definition of marriage that the courts are concerned with, not the religious one.

I am trying to figure out "the abomination of the homosexual lifestyle". Is this anything like the heterosexual lifestyle where people cheat on their spouses or get drug and marry for the weekend?

Civil unions would be fine for homosexuals if they really did contain all the same rights as marriage, but none of them do.

I don't think anyone is asking religions to change their definitions of marriage or to force homosexuals to marry within the confines of their church, any more than a catholic church is required to join two jews in marriage.

This country is suppose to have separation of church and state.

I think gay marriage is disgusting and should be outlawed federally. Being gay or lesbian is a choice, not a condition or sickness. If I thought for one minute that there was a defective gene in the human body that was the cause for being homosexual, then I would have all the compassion in the world for homosexuals, but again, it’s a choice being homosexual and I think that choice is disgusting!

I think gay marriage is disgusting and should be outlawed federally. Being gay or lesbian is a choice, not a condition or sickness. If I thought for one minute that there was a defective gene in the human body that was the cause for being homosexual, then I would have all the compassion in the world for homosexuals, but again, it’s a choice being homosexual and I think that choice is disgusting!

I think gay marriage is disgusting and should be outlawed federally. Being gay or lesbian is a choice, not a condition or sickness. If I thought for one minute that there was a defective gene in the human body that was the cause for being homosexual, then I would have all the compassion in the world for homosexuals, but again, it’s a choice being homosexual and I think that choice is disgusting!

Last I checked this country was bound to respect the boundaries between church and state. A marriage license grants two people legal rights, not religious ones, and as such the state cannot use someone's bronze-age definition of marriage in 21st century America. Make everyone get a civil union, and those who want to be married by their spiritual leader can do so separately.

The biological argument focusing marriage on children is a red-herring. If marriage is only about producing children, then women over 40 should be barred from marrying and all couples should be required to produce children within 5 years or have their marriage annulled. I don't see anyone advocating that from their self-righteous pulpit.

It's all about ignorance. Homosexuality is a choice most people have to make. Don't deceive yourself, you should feel atracted to both, men and women. Take a look at your body and you know who you are supposed to marry. Unfortunately, there is a spiritual issue here that is hard to understand when you ignore the natural laws established by God. Ask a guy with a wife and children why he is involved in a homosexual relationship. May God have mercy!

It comes down to what is the definition of marriage.

Many people treat their pets like children, but nobody would ever define a pet as a child.

Similarly, homosexual union cannot be defined as a marriage. It is a union and can certainly be granted all the rights and privileges of a marriage. But it cannot be called or defined as a marriage because it lacks the biological fundamentals of a marriage.

Nate-

You forgot that a third of the world is Islamic and that number is growing. They are looking for world-wide shariah. Where does that leave you?

More than a political issue, it's a cultural issue just like any other law regarding decency.

Once all the old coots die and globalization unites and empowers newer theories of a g-d of love, christianity in America will lose it's tremendous influence of fear. That day may be 50 years away, but maybe then we can reduce abortion rates by opening up a whole new market for adoption by accepting gays/lesbians get married by the state. The church will always be exclusive of someone they can invoke fear over, so those marriages will probably never happen in any current church. But just like anything, the new will grow, and the old will decay. You know... when you think about it, death is part of an intelligent design. It rids the planet of ignorance and allows the newer generations to improve humanity. Thumbs up G-d!

More than a political issue, it's a cultural issue just like any other law regarding decency. Once all the old coots die and globalization unites and empowers newer theories of a g-d of love, christianity in America will lose it's tremendous influence of fear. That day may be 50 years away, but maybe then we can reduce abortion rates by opening up a whole new market for adoption by accepting gays/lesbians get married by the state. The church will always be exclusive of someone they can invoke fear over, so those marriages will probably never happen in any current church. But just like anything, the new will grow, and the old will decay. You know... when you think about it, death is part of an intelligent design. It rids the planet of ignorance and allows the newer generations to improve humanity. Thumbs up G-d!

What happened to the separation of church and state? In most countries two people register their union (marriage) with their local municipality (straight or gay) and the church is not involved. Then if they wish the church to bless their union (or not) that is a separate and private decision.

What happened to the separation of church and state? In most countries two people register their union (marriage) with their local municipality (straight or gay) and the church is not involved. Then if they wish the church to bless their union (or not) that is a separate and private decision.

"I don't care about who is doing what with whom in bed, as long as it comes with dignity and respect of the (equal) rights regardless the genders within the bond."

Have you considered the impact that the illnesses perpetuated by un-natural sex among many partners may have on a society?

No human being on this planet received a document drafted and signed by God about what is right and what is wrong. So this means that God doesn't consider the issue important enough to either correct or confirm what was drafted by a human being many centuries ago.
Some believe there will be judgment day, so let's assume this is a true fact of death: The confrontation with God remains to be a personal event and whilst I'm not gay, I would have little interest in 3rd party's concern about my post-life justifications in the face of God.
So am I in agreement with gay marriage? It's none of my, or anybody's business and frankly I don't care about who is doing what with whom in bed, as long as it comes with dignity and respect of the (equal) rights regardless the genders within the bond. Why do people always zoom into the act of sex, while the true issue is humanity?

why marriage?

what is said? -i now pronounce you (not man and wife) what?

what god has joined together? (god can't join together- the parts don't fit)

whatever it is- its not sacramental.

Huh,

Rite or Wrong?

What's wrong with the media and religion?

Here's a question:

Retarded or Brain~Damaged?

___________________________________________

I have no problem with it. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, its just the way they are wired. So we should not descrimante against them. However, I think the majority of Americans would be more comfortable wit the concept of civil unions and as long as that provides the same legal protections and responsibilities that may be the way to go.

However, just as with hetrosexual unions sometimes they don't work out and we need to address that issue as well if we are going to have a 50 state hodge podge of rules on the issue.

Issue always takes center stage during Presidential Election Years.

Homosexuals and lesbians have been getting married for thousands of years, just not to other homosexuals and other lesbians. Same thing with adopting children. Homosexual couples and lesbian couples have been adopting children for thousands of years, just off the street, not out of the orphanage. America had many children living in the streets as recently as the Great Depression and the Industrial Revolution.

In a world where millions are starving, wars rage and we are facing a crisis with climatic change, it seems to me that many people are taking this issue a little too seriously.
Some pretend to speak for God, more power to them. Others say leave them alone, and still others say they are simply sinners.
I think we have much bigger problems to solve than who is married to who, same sex or not.

The government has no business allowing or proscribing personal habits, when those decisions aren't agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the people (i.e. no-one except criminals is in favor of burglary or robbery). If we do give it that power, we are opening the doors to government interference in the affairs of others (Jews, Blacks, etc.) It would be another matter if gay mmarriage interfered with heterosexual marriage, but it doesn't.

OK, People - Live and let live should be the guiding principle here. Normal/abnormal? Who's to say? Judge not, baby, lest yee be judged. Do you really care who sleeps in who's bed or what they do there? If you do, then I suggest you examine your motives. It's a great big world. We don't need any more bigots or naysayers. 'The laws of God, the laws of man, He may keep who will and can, not I'. Ken Post

OK, People - Live and let live should be the guiding principle here. Normal/abnormal? Who's to say? Judge not, baby, lest yee be judged. Do you really care who sleeps in who's bed or what they do there? If you do, then I suggest you examine your motives. It's a great big world. We don't need any more bigots or naysayers. 'The laws of God, the laws of man, He may keep who will and can, not I'.

Personally, I could care less who marries who. As far as I'm concerned a man or woman can marry their dog or cat. It is really none of anyones business who marries who. If I were woman I would rather marry a woman than a man.

I am always surprised that the role of cultural development and the problems that marriage is designed to address rarely enters into the discussion. One side seems to be all about sin, while the other is all about the putative rights of romantic lovers. The initial design of marriage was the result of a desire to regulate three intertwined conditions: the violence attendant to the pursuit of sex; the protection of the natural product of heterosexual sex (children); and protection for the more vulnerable sex partner (females). I don’t pretend that there was some uncorrupted time when marriage did these things perfectly but I think that examining the roots of marriage provides a secular basis for keeping it strictly heterosexual.

Pregnancy and the subsequent rearing of children diminish a women’s productive capacity. This is true even in our post-industrial economy, where pregnant pauses still can derail a career, sabotage advancement and curtail cash income. Marriage is an institution through which males assume the responsibility to cover these deficits, support the sacrifices of the females and protect the vulnerable children. The payoff for the male is the easy sexual availability that (in theory) a wife provides. The benefits that modern marriage conveys have been grafted on to support marriage’s fundamental purposes.

Homosexual couples are not naturally exposed to same vulnerabilities as heterosexuals. There is no inherent social dilemma that marriage would solve. Homosexual couples are seeking the grafted on benefits like being able to direct the care of a stricken partner or having automatic inheritance. But these are things that could be and should be addressed through legislation. Domestic partnership laws could be drawn up to benefit non-romantic relationships as well as homosexual couples. A parent might be able to be included on an adult offspring’s health insurance or coverage could be extended to siblings in certain circumstances. There is another reason same gender marriage is being sought: homosexuals want access to the enhanced social status that marriage seems to provide. I do not find this reason compelling either.

I am always surprised that the role of cultural development and the problems that marriage is designed to address rarely enters into the discussion. One side seems to be all about sin, while the other is all about the putative rights of romantic lovers. The initial design of marriage was the result of a desire to regulate three intertwined conditions: the violence attendant to the pursuit of sex; the protection of the natural product of heterosexual sex (children); and protection for the more vulnerable sex partner (females). I don’t pretend that there was some uncorrupted time when marriage did these things perfectly but I think that examining the roots of marriage provides a secular basis for keeping it strictly heterosexual.

Pregnancy and the subsequent rearing of children diminish a women’s productive capacity. This is true even in our post-industrial economy, where pregnant pauses still can derail a career, sabotage advancement and curtail cash income. Marriage is an institution through which males assume the responsibility to cover these deficits, support the sacrifices of the females and protect the vulnerable children. The payoff for the male is the easy sexual availability that (in theory) a wife provides. The benefits that modern marriage conveys have been grafted on to support marriage’s fundamental purposes.

Homosexual couples are not naturally exposed to same vulnerabilities as heterosexuals. There is no inherent social dilemma that marriage would solve. Homosexual couples are seeking the grafted on benefits like being able to direct the care of a stricken partner or having automatic inheritance. But these are things that could be and should be addressed through legislation. Domestic partnership laws could be drawn up to benefit non-romantic relationships as well as homosexual couples. A parent might be able to be included on an adult offspring’s health insurance or coverage could be extended to siblings in certain circumstances. There is another reason same gender marriage is being sought: homosexuals want access to the enhanced social status that marriage seems to provide. I do not find this reason compelling either.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can have civil unions, but in no way is their uniting a marriage. Gays rightfully deserve tolerance and acceptance. However, gays are going beyond that when they expect the world to view marriage as a union between two people, no matter the sexes. That goes beyond tolerance and acceptance. That is sheer bullying and disrespect of people who believe marriage is a man and woman union only.

Is it love for each other or fear of the opposite sex or a mutant gene or a hormone imbalance or mutual/shared hand jiving? Whatever it is, homosexuality is still yucky IMHO.

This is down right funny. First the Republicans say that only the states can decided the gay marriage issue. Then the states(MA and CA) courts say Gay Marriage is OK. Where can the Republicans go next to the cities? Oh yes now a Senator wants to put it in the constitution, give me a break when will the Republicans and the radical right give up? Are they going to try and start up the Gay trials (AKA Salem Witch trials) or are they going to create a military base off in lets say Panama and send gays there to be tortured (ie straightened out?). People need to be watching after their own business and not be concerned about the next door neighbor.

The state's interest in marriage is about financial benefits. Deductions for married vs single, number of children, inheritence of social security benefits, etc. are all directed to married couples. The state does not have the right to define a "couple" whether they are man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, black and white. To deny these benefits to people living together as a couple,is discrimination. The state should be prohibited from denying benefits based on an individual's choice of partner just as it is prohibited from discriminating based on race and creed.

called just their were the best, it is a I remember reminded pretty work plants now to ramble them. leaves

It is time to stop the cave men ( an I do mean men) who are running the country from denying people who love other people the basic rights we spend so much time talking about when we invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of innocents, promote gun ownership etc. Put these largely Republican Neanderthals back where they belong, out of power.

I particularly dislike the twits who start their little missive with " as a Christian" For the most part these people have no idea what that means except as defined by TV on Sunday. Read the bible people Jesus slept with male disciples, ohh ohh cover my ears.

This entire argument is about a word. That word has significant weight on both sides of the fight, but for different reasons. Seeing as the trend seems to be moving towards favoring equal rights for straight and gay partners, the fight is indeed about the word "marriage." But we should consider what marriage is in the eyes of the government. it is a contract to share financial and legal obligations. the term "civil union" is a more appropriate for the government to be using for all couples.

So lets remove the term "marriage" from all government concern. Everyone should have a "civil union" in the eyes of the courts. Leave marriage to the churches, which are the institutions that place all the emphasis on those 8 letters. And if churches want to allow gay marriage, good for them. if not i don't think anyone would be able to successfully sue a religious institution and be taken seriously.

"Pottery" says, "As a Christian..."

Who cares? Is this supposed to attach some special significance to your opinion? It carries no more weight than if you said, "As an astrologer..."

As a devout atheist banjo player, I think marriage is what you choose to make of it for yourself. Beyond that, it's no one else's business. Whether the government or some church is involved in the "rite" is irrelevant.

I think it's a "sacred right" of everyone to not have narrow minded bible or koran (spell it anyway you like) thumpers get involved in their lives.

Why can't "believers" keep their "faith" to themselves? Dog forbid that someone, somewhere, is enjoying their life without declaring jesus or mohammed their personal saviour.

billm

He who is with out sin, cast the first stone!

If there is such a thing as degree of Sin, besides the 10 commandments, which I am assuming #1 being the worst to break, on down to the lest #10. Then I think you so called Christians, are in a heap of trouble! The question is, why if homosexuality was such a abomination, Didn't Jesus preach about it? Please do not tell me it wasn't going on during his time on earth, because it was profusely widespread. Prostitution was legal during the time of Christ. You can't go by the Bible, because it was written by men! "Leviticus" can be translated to "Laws of the Tribe of Levy." In other words, if you are not a member of the Jewish tribe of Levy, the laws listed in there do not apply to you. I think it is safe to say that most homosexuals are not descended from that tribe.

Most of the quotes I have seen are from the Bible. I am not impressed, and I am not ignorant - if you are reading the Bible in English, there are many mistranslations. Even the third commandment is commonly mistranslated as "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain." This is a mistranslation: the correct translation is "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord." Such mistranslations are everywhere.

I love your Jesus, what a brave compassionate man he was. His whole message was about love, forgiveness, tolerance and not judging! You Christians could learn a lot from him. I have to enlighten you tho, Your God makes Homosexuals!

He who is with out sin, cast the first stone!

If there is such a thing as degree of Sin, besides the 10 commandments, which I am assuming #1 being the worst to break, on down to the lest #10. Then I think you so called Christians, are in a heap of trouble! The question is, why if homosexuality was such a abomination, Didn't Jesus preach about it? Please do not tell me it wasn't going on during his time on earth, because it was profusely widespread. Prostitution was legal during the time of Christ. You can't go by the Bible, because it was written by men! "Leviticus" can be translated to "Laws of the Tribe of Levy." In other words, if you are not a member of the Jewish tribe of Levy, the laws listed in there do not apply to you. I think it is safe to say that most homosexuals are not descended from that tribe.

Most of the quotes I have seen are from the Bible. I am not impressed, and I am not ignorant - if you are reading the Bible in English, there are many mistranslations. Even the third commandment is commonly mistranslated as "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain." This is a mistranslation: the correct translation is "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord." Such mistranslations are everywhere.

I love your Jesus, what a brave compassionate man he was. His whole message was about love, forgiveness, tolerance and not judging! You Christians could learn a lot from him. I have to enlighten you tho, Your God makes Homosexuals!

The problem I have with gay marriage--indeed any attempt to radically alter human behaviors by deciding there is a legal right to do so and that human behaviors are not held to a sacred code--is that radical alteration often leads to if not the breakdown of society just another sacred code.

Gay marriage is particularly dubious because it calls forth ancient societies which not only had a different sacred code than ours but broke down for various reasons. Greeks and Romans were tolerant of man/boy love and both Greece and Rome had a different religion than the modern West and both gave way to the modern West.

We today in America seem to assume we can legally sanction this or that behavior with not only no ill consequences to society but no ill consequences to current religion. I would question this assumption. Legally altering behavior probably alters what we mean by the sacred, and trying for a society which continuously and legally alters behavior without hardening into some type of the sacred is probably for now a utopian dream.

But secularists would have us believe legal alterations of behavior will result in an America which is...Well that is precisely the question. What effect do those who support gay marriage expect it to have on society? That current religion will be preserved and marriage is just being extended to gays? What troubles me is no one really seems to be thinking ahead, putting it into a social, anthropological, political dimension. We just have gays wanting to marry and religious people opposing it. Selfishness on all sides. We need some type of imaginative effort to determine what society would look like not only with gay marriage but legalized behaviors of all types. The question right now is not being for or against gay marriage or this or that behavior (legalized drug addiction for example) but being for sets of projections that try to determine effects of such on society.

Projections first then experiments by certain states only. Certainly no radical alteration of behavior should be expected to immediately spread over the nation as a whole. But I will say that gay marriage undermines the sacredness of current marriage, makes it more questionable as a standard behavior of society. Gay marriage is a subversive action automatically unless it can decisively lead to a redefinition of the moral. In a sense gay marriage today is a form of art--performance art. It illuminates us, forces us to recognize that social behaviors are not unalterable, but whether it leads to a new and superior society is a different question.

We should look all over human history in an attempt to extrapolate from this problem. So far we have no reliable projections. Just fears of falling into an ancient and pagan depravity.

Consider this - only a man and a woman can create a child. Two women cannot create a child together, nor can two men create a child together. Natural order indicates that marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. I don't believe people that say they were "born" gay. Somewhere along the way in their life they were introduced to that lifestyle. In essence, they learned that lifestyle; just like someone learns their brand of faith or their vocation. Another person in their life introduced them to and taught them that lifestyle.

Who cares? HOW does it hurt you ? Goodness... Let's talk economy.. THAT HURTS ME!

Simple fact: In the law, marriage is a legal right.

Sacredness optional. You want sacred, come see your clergy.

Justice and fairness in America, not optional.

So my Hindu or Muslim or Agnostic friends who get married, are they technically NOT married because it doesn't happen to agree with Christian beliefs? If faith is some all-important encompassing requirement for the Christian Right to accept a marriage as a MARRIAGE, why would marriage in other faiths be any less unsettling than two people who happen to be the same sex? These are people who actively DENY the validity of Christ as their savior, who think the triune God is a load of hooey, who marry in traditions rooted (or not) in faiths that contradict the Christian faith in dozens of ways. Isn't that more of a threat to your sanctity of marriage?

I fail to see how this isn't the dying gasp of obsolete hypocrites.

So, according to Moody and some others, Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage is more valid than that of George Takei and his partner, who have been together for 21 years? Go figure.

Last I checked, we still had the separation of Church and State. (Or, maybe not...) In this country, the State grants the power to join two people in marriage through the marriage license. The clergy member is empowered by the state to sign the license in place of a government official. Hence the phrase, "by the power vested in me by the State of X, I pronounce you husband and wife." The religious denomination can choose to perform the rite of Matrimony - or not, in some cases. But the Government may only restrict you from bigamy, non-consensual underage marriage, and marrying a person to whom you are closely related.

The concept of marriage as a loving partnership between two people has really only come about within the past 200 years or so. Most Americans don't pay a bride-price or dowry anymore, nor do they have arranged marriages (unless they are of particular ethnicities that follow those customs.) Many children are born to single mothers, and are raised in single-parent families. Many couples choose not to get married, or choose not to have children, or adopt a child of a different race or ethnic background. The time of women being financially dependent on a man is over with, for the most part.

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as straights? Why should they be barred from inheriting their partners' property, or visiting their hospital rooms, or filing their taxes jointly? Give me one non-religious reason why we should not allow same-sex marriage, and maybe I'll consider it. But until then, this straight chick will happily dance at the weddings of her gay friends.

Marriage, the sacrament officiated by our churches (and limited however they please, in accordance with biblical or any other dictates) should be distinguished from marriage, the legal term, with all the associated legal implications, administered by those licensed by the state (your minister can't perform a marriage recognized by the state unless he or she follows the state's rules) to those who obtain a license to get married.

With enough legal work, I can give my partner and I most of the incidents of marriage. Domestic partner and civil union laws make that much easier. Unless the point is to subsidize lawyers, I have heard no one attack civil unions on the grounds that allowing automatic property inheritance is an abomination or offense to the Lord. If we don't oppose giving gays the opportunity to obtain the same legal situation as married folks, what earthly, or heavenly, reason is there to make sure that neither gays nor the state use the same word to describe those who are civilly united as those who have received the sacrament, or who have not but had a court clerk perform the ritual and are heterosexual?

Shannon, you couldn't have hit more in the head. I totally agree. As for Moody, it's always amazing how ignorant some people can be. I will read on...

I think its weird that religion is even a part of this discussion. What is up for debate is whether marriage in its LEGAL form should be available. And why shouldnt it? It makes no sense to deny marriage to two consenting adults who share their lives together. This is not a Christian dictatorship, its a democracy (in theory). Why should their gender make a difference? Religion on the other hand should only be in charge of itself, so...if a specific church or group or leader feels its wrong, then that religious community can refuse to perform religious ceremonies, and refuse to acknowledge whoever they feel are "second class citizens". But in my opinion they need to mind their own business.

Let’s analyze Gay Union (physical relation).

It consist of two parts
1- Emotional part that is LOVE which alone without physical part doesn’t fall in the category of Gay relation.
2- Physical part ONLY that defines if the relation is Gay or not. OR you can say that if two men are sexually involved ONLY THEN IT IS GAY REALTION.
So basically this relation is based on SEXUAL NATURE only!

Now lets analyze its MAIN ASPECT that is physical sexual relation.

1- From male satisfaction and sensation point, the best you get is from women. Question : Is it normal and hygienic or SICK behavior to get it willingly by hitting a s.h.i.t hole??
2- And from the point view of person who is allowing the unnatural intercourse through his s.h.i.t hole. Question : Is in love he force the other to hit his s.h.i.t.? Is it normal or extremely unhygienic insane behavior??

Now the last question does love really demand such unhygienic and UNNATURAL behavior??

Are we so lost that don’t know countless other ways of showing our love and compassion like caring, helping and protecting each other rights etc? Rights doesn’t mean s.h.i.t bashing or adopting insane activities. Insanity is a DESEASE and not the normal course or nature of life. BAD HABITS ARE NOT NATURE, YOU ARE ONLY SO AROGANT NOT WILLING TO LEAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!

Government trumps religion. In ancient civilizations government was religion, but today a government must bring together many religious perspectives. Governments rulings are more abstract and presumably more fair to the general population. It is up to the citizens involved to make sure this happens.

First of all we need to see that word, “marriage" or "marry" originates from where? It originates from religion. And all religions unanimously describe it as spiritual binding between man and women only. And all Abrahamic religions disapprove gay or lesbian relationships or binding. So, if somebody wants to bind them self in the same sex relationship then WHY insist on word marriage (or in other words seek religious approval)??? If you can choose to live your way, then why ask religions to change their meanings or ways according to your rules! If you have the legal right, YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RELIGIONS ARE ALSO LEGALLY BOUND TO CHANGE THEIR MEANINGS TOO!!

"Is marriage a legal right or a sacred rite?"

The legal thing is about ownership of property; the sacred thing is about commitment and trust. These are actually two worlds we live in simultaneously. Marriage brings them both together, at least in our culture. And in our culture there is a strong emphasis on license for sex. So people who believe two people of the same sex should not have such license, also believe they should be prevented from getting married. This is not my belief, but I understand it.

It's "judicial activism" if the decision goes against our position, and it's a "proper and just" decision when it supports our position.

The judges can't win.

All the California Supremes have done is to get drunk on judicial activism. Only the Republican right will benefit.

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states." Wikipedia

"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I notice the only qualifier in that statement is "any", not "unless the person is gay, or black, or non-Christian, or red-headed"...nope, these qualifiers aren't mentioned at all.

"The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

So the court in California is doing exactly what the Constitution demands of it, enforcing the principle that all men are created equal.

So what are y'all so upset about?

The real problem is that "marriage" is both a religious rite and a legal term. This dual usage is, in a very real sense, an issue of separation.

The government should cease using the word "marriage" ("marry", etc.) in any government or other legal documents. All legally defined unions should be simply defined as "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned.

This would put all "life pairings" on equal footing from the legal/governmental standing AND allow religious institutions to do as they see fit with their rites and rituals concerning "marriage".

The simple answer is yes - marriage is a legal right and a sacred rite.

The state should not restrict the civil marriage rights of those who are of age and competent nor should they deny the rights of religions to decide who may receive their sacred rite of marriage.

Marriage is also a sacred rite that is administered by the Church (synagogue, mosque etc). Religious groups have every right to decide who qualifies for their rites - gay and straight. Nor should they decide who gets civil marriage rights.

The simple answer is yes - marriage is a legal right and a sacred rite.

The state should not restrict the civil marriage rights of those who are of age and competent nor should they deny the rights of religions to decide who may receive their sacred rite of marriage.

Marriage is also a sacred rite that is administered by the Church (synagogue, mosque etc). Religious groups have every right to decide who qualifies for their rites - gay and straight. Nor should they decide who gets civil marriage rights.

As a Christian, the Bible defines marriage. It centers around procreation, and is the basic building block of societies for as long as I know of. It may have been that the author of that part of the Bible was embellishing and adding a personal, cultural point of view, but it's there on the page.

Civil union is a secular concept and is, for me, the appropriate remedy for same sex unions, in a secular world.

Still, if it solves the abomination of the homosexual lifestyle, that part that involves sexual excesses . . . .

Gay relationships are "yucky" and always will be in MHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?