Readers’ Responses to Our Question (163)

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