Married by God or Government?

All well and good, except next the church will come under fire, just like real marraige. Sigh about that...

For the millions of gay Americans this is a big deal because anti-gay prejudice profoundly affects our lives and in many cases warps our lives. Laws that state we are to be treated equally will send a persistent message to the citizenry that we too deserve respect and attitudes toward us will change as a consequence. As things stand now we continue to be viewed by many as failed specimens of humanity, though not to the same degree as years ago. Regarding churches, they have absolutely nothing to do with this. It's the state, not churches, that ultimately decides the validity of a marriage. Many churches and synagogues have been marrying gay couples for decades now and to no avail. Many, if not most, will continue to refuse. So what? Anyone who didn't sleep through junior high civics class should know that religious organizations' rights are constitutionally inviolable in this regard, as they should be. Bringing churches into the matter has always been a cynical tactic on the part of the right to muddle the issue and scare people.

While I support gays as people, I do not believe their way of life is the best for them, but neither am I perfect. I think people get so wrapped up in the label, homosexual, that they forget that there are people behind that label. While I will never support a constitutional admendment that would make gay marriage the same as my marriage, I do support civil unions and most importantly I support the people. Love the person, and leave the sin to God.

Both Obama and Clinton support civil unions for gays - and by proxy, a legal contract between two consenting adults of whatever gender combination. Each state will have to address this question individually - why make it a federal issue??

McCain apparently does not support civil unions for same sex partners - given his pandering to the evangelicals and right-wing of the GOP like he is - but then, he's not going to get elected anyway.

It will be unfortunate if this becomes a primary campaign issue with democrats yet again - this is a distraction from the many pressing concerns that the entire population is dealing with, rather than a relatively small segment of the populace.

IMO, let gay rights be addressed at a later date, and by individual states, after the election......

If gay marriage is already legalized in our neighboring country, Canada and many other European countries, why is it NOT feasible here? How different are we from them? Are they aliens or are we aliens?????????????????????????????????

Tiff:

What the heck it means to say: "never support a admendment that would make gay marriage the same as my marriage"?

Every marriage is different and no one will force anybody to have a marriage as yours.

Canada and Europe have universal health care too. Maybe we are really different from them.

Very well said, Ms. Hoffman! America already HAS a difference between church marriage and legal marriage (as a Catholic, my church doesn't recognize marriages between divorcees either, but no one is calling for state bans on that!!), and it's really upsetting when prejudices are played to warp that.

Let anyone get married by the state-- it's a legal contract-- and let each church decide for itself who it will let or ban from marriage.

I made a mistake and gave a title to my post - A Big Deal ... - instead of my name.

Why openly support something your Creator doesn't? As a nation under God, there were very many people who've disgraced it with their agnostic decisions.

Excellent comment.

I'm glad there are other religious people as myself who can separate what GOVERNMENT does from what RELIGION does.

Should we respect the beliefs of people who think that marriage between races is God's law, too?
The God I believe in thinks it's a fine thing for people to celebrate their commitment to each other, regardless of race or gender

We'll be more than happy to let you keep marriage in the Church, just as soon as you hetero's give up the 'State' priveleges, ie, tax breaks and other 'state' (including FEDERAL) benefits you get.

Should we respect the beliefs of people who think that marriage between races is God's law, too?
The God I believe in thinks it's a fine thing for people to celebrate their commitment to each other, regardless of race or gender.

You bible bangers should seriously just keep your laws in church. It isn't the right of Human laws to dictate what a person can and cannot do. thats not what the constitution does. And basing laws on what god says is completely erroneous. Oh and hey, god isn't real.

What's next, animals? Why is the human race so obsessed with life around sexual preference? Poligamy, gay marriage, prostitution, child molestation, rape, the list can go on and on

Are polygamists tax paying citizens...because they want to come to the party too. Ms. Hoffman's logic should apply to them as well (of course we must allow multiple husbands as well as wives).

Well I'm a bit jaded I suppose. I didn't need or see the church at all during my (heterosexual) divorce. There was no preacher, no church and no room full of people. It was a matter between me, my ex-wife and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As such it became clear to me just how much of a business relationship marriage is in the fist place.

Despite whatever upbring you have the fact is marriage (in the United States) is very much a legal contract. If it is, as many want to maintain, a spiritual contract between a couple and God then that aspect is secondary to the legal part.

If the state issues marriage licenses, then it is a civil matter.

If an Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy issues marriage licenses, then it is a religious matter.

In California each County is responsible for issuing marriage licenses, nothing in the law requires the consent of a homophobic TV evangelist.

Mikie, how exactly will the Church be 'attacked' without violating the Establishment clause, or when being non-Christian automatically makes one unelectable, or when several states have a religious test office (something which is explicitly unconstitutional.)

Please, 'real marriage' used to mean same-race only. Unless you've got a good argument that applies for same-sex marriage now that did not apply at the time for same-race marriage, then your 'real marriage' argument is bogus.

Since when shoud a COURT NOT decide to take up an issue that is so clearly discrimination. I am not afforded the same rights as you - PERIOD! I am glad the court is involved. Perhaps someone will listen - yea for California!!! Like anyone in Hooterville, Missouri would ever come to this without legal prompting is highly doubtfull. (Unfortunately, I am from Missouri)

Marriage is a sacrement,keep it in church. And make all legally sanctioned partnerships, INCLUDING MAN/WOMAN, domestic partnerships !!!

People seem to forget that marriage is in effect a legally binding agreement between two adults. Why can't we just allow homosexuals this right and if the various churches do not want to perform the ceremony then that would be their right. People always get married at the courthouse.

I know gay couples who's commitment to each other and their relationship should be used as a guide to a successful marriage.

As far as the argument that gay marriage would damage marriage. The only thing that could damage marriage are the two people who are married.

there is a reason this was considered (and still is) sodomy. So whats next bestiality, how about making it ok to have multiple spouses, or wait - one should be allowed to "marry" a goat of his/her choice or may be a "cow". WTF !

If the above is legal in Canada and Mexico - please move there. Dont pollute my country with this filth.

Marriage is a legal contract by the state offering certain rights and privileges. It is not about religious beliefs. What continues to amaze me is how the same people who would deny marriage to all cannot see the connection to their freedom of and from religion. The Republicans will use any fear to try to win the election; Islam, homosexuality, black people. I hope that at some point the American people will get wise enough to see past these fear tactics and base their decision on policy issues rooted in track records, versus newsspeak.

I have struggled with where I stand on this issue for a long time. I'm a Christian, and most of my Christian friends act as though there's really only one way to see this issue. But I'm also a libertarian--government is far too intrusive, and needs to get out of our personal lives! It exists to serve us, we don't exist to serve it. So I've finally concluded--government should not bar any two consenting adults from marrying. Christian leaders go on about preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but a) why is that the government's job? and b) through several decades of gay marriage being outlawed, the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage has only continued to decline, so I really don't think government's position on this is going to relate whatsoever to the way individuals approach their commitment to marriage.

If we want to go after those that destroy marriage, let's go after those states that have legalized divorce. And those leaders who flaunt divorce. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.

If you don't believe that God instituted the sacrament of marriage, then you look to government(ie men) to define marriage. This is the issue, there is no other.

To me, this is a very simple issue. "Marriage" is a religious institution. The United States should stop recognizing marriage across the board. Each state can have a legal contract that stipulates parental responsibility, tax issues, property divisions and ownership, and all the other legal aspects. Any persons wanting to be a couple that gets tax breaks, desires to own joint property, etc. can do this legal contract. Then, if the couple wishes to have a religious ceremony, they may do so at any religious organization that will agree to do it. Today's society has intense legal issues involved in marriage. The Churchs do not address, nor do they have authority over, these issues. Let's simplify it: make the legal aspects a legal contract and the religious marriage a religious action.

Since when shoud a COURT NOT decide to take up an issue that is so clearly discrimination. I am not afforded the same rights as you - PERIOD! I am glad the court is involved. Perhaps someone will listen - yea for California!!! Like anyone in Hooterville, Missouri would ever come to this without legal prompting is highly doubtfull. (Unfortunately, I am from Missouri)

Sorry Tiff....
"Love the person, leave the sin to God," simply isn't Biblical.
I konw I wll probably come off as the ULTRA right wing, Bible thumping, facist, but I'll say it anyways: Jesus came preaching a simple gospel, "Repent!" John the Baptist said the same, "Repent!" So did all the other apostles. I aim to follow the Bible, not some watered down version of the gospel (2 Tim. 4:3).

The problem with Ms. Hoffman's position about why people should not be concerned about the legalization of gay marriage is that there is no such thing as a totally private act. The legalization of gay marriage cheapens the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, an institution that is a fundamental building block of a healthy society. So when the institution of marriage is attacked and weakened, we all suffer. In addition, the legalization of gay marriage will no doubt lead to greater acceptance of adoption by homosexual couples--something that I feel is very unfair to the children involved, because they need a mother and a father. We as a society will also no doubt feel the effects of children growing up in a family where their basic needs for two parents of the opposite sex are not met.

My parents were Buddhist, and weren't married in a church. Marriage is not just a Christian entity, and anyone who thinks it is has been severely disillusioned. I do not think people should be respected for their beliefs against homosexuality if it inhibits someone from doing what should be a common human right.

Marriage is a legal contract by the state offering certain rights and privileges. It is not about religious beliefs. What continues to amaze me is how the same people who would deny marriage to all cannot see the connection to their freedom of and from religion. The Republicans will use any fear to try to win the election; Islam, homosexuality, black people. I hope that at some point the American people will get wise enough to see past these fear tactics and base their decision on policy issues rooted in track records, versus newsspeak.

The words, couldnt care less come to mind.

Well, looking at it from a single's point of view, why should married folks get special consideration in the context of any benefits, taxes, health insurance, etc.? I pay lots of taxes and support public schools (I don't have kids). Are there any special governmental/social/health benefits that benefit singles?

Sorry but I beleive the Bible... I respect everyone and treat everyone good but for me (I said only for me) it is a sin to be a homosexual. The homosexuals will have to stand before God just like I will on judgement day and God will judge all of us.... I hope everyone goes to Heaven! God Bless Everyone...

The constitution requires a separation of Church and State.
The Constitution requires equal treatment for all people.
The obvious solution is to BAN MARRIAGE by the state. Let the churches marry people. All State sponsored functions for all people should be civil unions, where the state mandates the rights (tax breaks etc ) and responsibilities (child support etc)for all people wishing to enter into a union.

The actual reason we are still debating this, and why divisive issues are decisive issues in our democracy, points to the one major flaw in our democracy: representation. Though we all have a right to vote, we do not have the right to be represented through our votes. On average every 2 out of 5 voters ends up being not represented by their choice. In nations that have inserted some proportionality into their district system, they have three, four or five parties, and they do not end up with black-and-white deliveries on the issues. Watching Canadian political programs and debates on TV, one can easily tell the difference: their reporters and debaters talk about the issues in depth, our reporters and comentators talk about the issue and then talk about the candidates in depth. Look at us, our most valuable democratic moment occurs before the elections (who is it going to be). Our presidential elections procedure of almost two years is absurd. If you are interested in how our system works, and how the other two forms of democracy work (the other forms being: 3 - 5 parties, and full representation), go to http://LocalParty.Org .No need to join, but they show insight into what is clearly 18th C. about our system.

I wonder how this will all play into gays being able to sue a Church for being prejudice if a Church declines to marry a gay couple. Nothing is as easy as it seems. Although California is saying that there shouldn't be a difference between the marriage of a woman to a man and a gay marriage, how will they treat the Church's views on that? I think we will see some cases come up about these types of lawsuits in the near future.

Not too sure what the point of the article was as it seemed to be another "lets all get along" ideas.

Thing is we can't all get along because who we are differs, there are tons of people just at work I barely agree with, so how is that going to happen worldwide?

Homosexuality is a sin, a preversion and if that isn't somehow obvious to you, without even reading a Bible, then peace be to you.

I'm always amazed we live in a world that prides itself on "intelligence" and how we have evolved and discovered how much more we know compared to last generations of people, but we can't seem to figure out that a man having sex with another man might not be OK.

But then again we have lost belief (do we even use the word anymore ) and think we have most of life figured out...kinda the same story that happened in Babylon...

The words, couldnt care less come to mind.

Sorry Tiff....
"Love the person, leave the sin to God," simply isn't Biblical.
I konw I wll probably come off as the ULTRA right wing, Bible thumping, facist, but I'll say it anyways: Jesus came preaching a simple gospel, "Repent!" John the Baptist said the same, "Repent!" So did all the other apostles. I aim to follow the Bible, not some watered down version of the gospel (2 Tim. 4:3).

Can we please retire the phrase "gay way of life"? It betrays extraordinary ignorance about the genuine diversity of the gay and lesbian communities that flourish all across this country. When people invoke the phrase "gay way of life," they make clear they really don't know much at all about their gay or lesbian neighbors, colleagues, and so on. People, we're everywhere, in all walks of life. Some want committed relationships, others not--just like heterosexuals. Some marriages last a lifetime, which is wonderful, if both people are happy, and some, like Britney Spears's, 55 hours. Just look at Nevada and quickie divorces.

You wanna talk about the Bible? The book recommends stoning for adultery. Some of us realize that not everything in the book is meant to be taken literally.

Please, don't hector or think you can lecture. Instead, look around you and see where there's real love, including between men and between women. Why would *anyone* because against love?

godisimaginary.com

Well, looking at it from a single's point of view, why should married folks get special consideration in the context of any benefits, taxes, health insurance, etc.? I pay lots of taxes and support public schools (I don't have kids). Are there any special governmental/social/health benefits that benefit singles?

Very well said Gary.

Also, So does this mean we should let Polygamy be legal? Once you make the exception, everything should be legal. Where does it stop. It was man and woman. Now it's not.

You bangers are really confused about how reality works. I think you are pathetic in the sense that you think you have the right to judge. When the reality is, is that god never gave you a stick to judge someone with. And those of you that go off on "What next animals" tangents are just as rediculous and President Bush. Grow up, expand a little bit, and get over yourselves. You are all just a bunch of monkeys like the rest of us.

We are scrambling to spend $15,000 so my Canadian partner and I can stay together in the US even though we are married in Massachusetts and Canada. In the US the Marriage does not cover Federal Law- so She cannot stay legally in the US unless her JOB sponsors her for a green card- so we are paying a Lawyer and crossing our fingers.

So this legal Marriage is only a little step- wouldn't it be great if it was recognized under federal Law in the USA?

I agree with Mikie, "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."

Hey Mikie, What do you mean by "real marriage" I'm a Gay Canadian and my marriage is very real. My commitment to my marriage is not contingent on your or a church's opinion. Maybe the church should come under fire. It is the only place in America where one can be openly hateful and hide it under the guise of GOD.....not just to Gays but to women as well.
And Mikey, this is not the first time in American history that the "who should be allowed to marry" issue has caused a stir. Not so long ago marriage was only allowed between people of the same race (whites could not marry blacks). In the sixties that changed and the world did not burst into flame.

The question is now - why not polygamy? If two consenting people, why not three? It seems that the law has to inevitably draw a line. But where does it stop? Gays may say - "but we're not wackos like those polygamists" - but that's what the straights said about the gays. Besides, do polygamists deserve marriage any less, just because they represent a smaller portion of the population?

Marriage should not be controlled by the state. It is a covenant between two people and controlled by their religious beliefs. The state's only concern should be financial (property law) and welfare (physical and psychological treatment of the children and dependent spouse. This can be handled by the state recognizing only civil union status and leaving marriage to the religious institutions. If all current marriages were declared to be civil unions under state (and federal) laws and the word "marriage" struck from legal status then most, if not all, of this debate could be easily resolved.

to say that your article is a wandering, non-specific line of gobbleygook would be an understatement. As a Christian, it is quite clear where the Bible stands pertaining to marriage. However, if you do not read, nor understand, or refuse to comply with God's Word, then you find yourself in a life of compromise, such as demonstrated in your stance. Needless to say, without few exceptions, most people can see that the world is not only in turmoil, but quickly coming to a close. Look around at what is happening and keep in mind that one day, we will all stand before the Lord to provide a "justification" for our lives. I fear that your stance will simply not stand the test. Perhaps you should again study the Book before you visit with the Author?

Sorry but I beleive the Bible... I respect everyone and treat everyone good but for me (I said only for me) it is a sin to be a homosexual. The homosexuals will have to stand before God just like I will on judgement day and God will judge all of us.... I hope everyone goes to Heaven! God Bless Everyone...

We are to hate the sin, not the sinner. As a Christian we must love all people. We are in end times and it is written that this will happen. You cannot force a person to change from their sinful ways but you can show them love and compassion and perhaps then Jesus will come into thier hearts and help them see the truth. Thats the message Christ brings and not mans manipulation of religion.
Blessings to all!

The key issue is whether government should be involved in the freedom to create relationships between individuals.

The answer is, they should not, which is the essence behind the California court's finding.

The right to decide the terms of human relationships is one of those left by the Constitution to the citizenry, and should be added to the Bill of Rights.

There are civil consequences to marriage, and they should be uniformly applied to any couple meeting other requirements, such as a blood test, without regard to sexual orientation, which is just none of the state's business.

The fact that some folks just cannot stop thinking about others' sexuality is not a good justification for making a religion out of being a busybody, or a government, either.

I do respect the opinion of those who feel that homosexuality is against god, up until the point that they feel that gives them the right in enforce their opinions on others.

Not everyone is a Christian, and as this country guarantees freedom of religion, I see no reason why only the Christian definition of marriage should be recognized.

This fight exists because there are specific places in our laws (contract law most notably, but there are others) where rights can be denied to someone who is not married. As law is nothing BUT semantics, each of these is a right that is denied to someone that's in a civil union.

The California ruling upheld the constitution of the state of california, and did not actually rule on gay marriage so much as it ruled that regardless of what it is called, same sex couples MUST be granted the same rights under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

The choice of the the citizens is clear:
1) Let this stand, gay marriage is legal and all have equal rights
2) Pass a law that specifically stipulates that civil union (or some other name) is granted to same sex couples and that within the law, said union is equal to marriage in ALL ways
3) Amend the Constitution of the state of California to remove the Equal Protection clause.
4) Move to another state

The question is now - why not polygamy? If two consenting people, why not three? It seems that the law has to inevitably draw a line. But where does it stop? Gays may say - "but we're not wackos like those polygamists" - but that's what the straights said about the gays. Besides, do polygamists deserve marriage any less, just because they represent a smaller portion of the population?

Just sayin'..

The California Supremes virtually guaranteed that this would be put to voters to amend our constitution banning gay marriage. Whomever will be the Democratic candidate for president will be forced to address this issue in the General campaign, since both Clinton and Obama are on record as opposing gay marriage. You think the republican justices writing for the majority didn't know this when they issued the decision? The amendment proposition is guaranteed to pass, since California already has domestic partnerships to protect the rights of gay couples, and we already have a state version of the DOMA. Pure political play here in a presidential election year. Dems still win California, but how does it affect the electoral math everywhere else?

The problem with Ms. Hoffman's position about why people should not be concerned about the legalization of gay marriage is that there is no such thing as a totally private act. The legalization of gay marriage cheapens the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, an institution that is a fundamental building block of a healthy society. So when the institution of marriage is attacked and weakened, we all suffer. In addition, the legalization of gay marriage will no doubt lead to greater acceptance of adoption by homosexual couples--something that I feel is very unfair to the children involved, because they need a mother and a father. We as a society will also no doubt feel the effects of children growing up in a family where their basic needs for two parents of the opposite sex are not met.

As a practicing Catholic, I can not condone homosexual marriage. However, the term marriage has historically been used with overt religious meanings; why not start using terminology in it's proper context-marriage as a religious ceremony that is binding to the rules of the religious group and therefore allowed it's boundaries. The government contract established between two people to share legal rights and obligations has nothing to do with religion, and should be kept separate. It is not the place of the faithful person to judge a situation without all the facts; and unless you place a camera in the home of every homosexual couple, you don't know for sure they are committing a sin. Let's allow unions for all who want joint legal rights (for whatever reason-it's not our business), and leave the "marriage" for those with a religious bent.

You said: "...my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Any tax payer? ANY? Fathers and grown daughters? Brothers and sisters? Polygamists?

Everyone likes to take the simple approach to this. It's not that simple is it?

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw one at all? It gets down to who has the right to define marriage? In a democracy, the majority does. And the majority did speak, voting to ban gay marriage.

Yes, you can cry civil rights, but gays are NOT a protected class. Protection is granted to classes that did not choose their class. There is currently no sound evidence saying that gays are born gay (despite what they claim), just as there is no evidence saying polygamists or those drawn to incest are born that way.

If we begin apportioning equal protection for classes that make choices to belong to the class, you'll have to accept polygamists and incest-drawn folks also.

homosexualism is wrong and sickening

Hey Mikie, What do you mean by "real marriage" I'm a Gay Canadian and my marriage is very real. My commitment to my marriage is not contingent on your or a church's opinion. Maybe the church should come under fire. It is the only place in America where one can be openly hateful and hide it under the guise of GOD.....not just to Gays but to women as well.
And Mikey, this is not the first time in American history that the "who should be allowed to marry" issue has caused a stir. Not so long ago marriage was only allowed between people of the same race (whites could not marry blacks). In the sixties that changed and the world did not burst into flame.

We are to hate the sin, not the sinner. As a Christian we must love all people. We are in end times and it is written that this will happen. You cannot force a person to change from their sinful ways but you can show them love and compassion and perhaps then Jesus will come into thier hearts and help them see the truth. Thats the message Christ brings and not mans manipulation of religion.
Blessings to all!

I am a Christian conservative and my view is against gay unions and the lifestyle entirely. Regardless of that though, when the gay agenda is pushed and is possibly offensive to me and I say something against it, I am immediately categorized as a intolerant, ultra conservative. But, when the gay agenda down grades and talks against those that opose the gay rights agenda such as churches and such for their beliefts it is viewed as progress? What is that all about?

You bangers are really confused about how reality works. I think you are pathetic in the sense that you think you have the right to judge. When the reality is, is that god never gave you a stick to judge someone with. And those of you that go off on "What next animals" tangents are just as rediculous and President Bush. Grow up, expand a little bit, and get over yourselves. You are all just a bunch of monkeys like the rest of us.

Very well said Gary.

Also, So does this mean we should let Polygamy be legal? Once you make the exception, everything should be legal. Where does it stop. It was man and woman. Now it's not.

Alot of people might disagree that people who believe homosexuality is against God should be respected for such beliefs. Homosexuality is hardly a choice nor against God by any measure of Jesus's teachings of love.
Maybe some of those people ought to head back to Sunday school and relearn some of those teachings:

'Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you'

Consider also that by bringing marriage back to religious only catageoy, we may be opening the door to Muslim sharia laws. I don't want those laws in this country. They are demeaning to women and have no place in the U.S. I feel the same way about any other group ... FLDS, Judaism, Christians, any group that has a legally binding rule that "unequalizes" women.

The key issue is whether government should be involved in the freedom to create relationships between individuals.

The answer is, they should not, which is the essence behind the California court's finding.

The right to decide the terms of human relationships is one of those left by the Constitution to the citizenry, and should be added to the Bill of Rights.

There are civil consequences to marriage, and they should be uniformly applied to any couple meeting other requirements, such as a blood test, without regard to sexual orientation, which is just none of the state's business.

The fact that some folks just cannot stop thinking about others' sexuality is not a good justification for making a religion out of being a busybody, or a government, either.

The simple fact is that Marriage is a religious sacrament and the government cannot and should not legislate religion. Having said that however there is no reason why an equivalent civil status couldn't be granted to same sex unions so that they have all the benefits of a married couple then let the churches decide if they would like to perform the sacrament of Marriage for these people as well.

So if we're going to depart from the traditional definition of one man and one woman for marriage, does this mean people of other alternative lifestyles such as polygamy should also be granted legal recognition by the state? If we're going to issue marriage licenses to those of the homosexual orientation, how about those of the non-monogamous orientation?

You said: "...my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Any tax payer? ANY? Fathers and grown daughters? Brothers and sisters? Polygamists?

Everyone likes to take the simple approach to this. It's not that simple is it?

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw one at all? It gets down to who has the right to define marriage? In a democracy, the majority does. And the majority did speak, voting to ban gay marriage.

Yes, you can cry civil rights, but gays are NOT a protected class. Protection is granted to classes that did not choose their class. There is currently no sound evidence saying that gays are born gay (despite what they claim), just as there is no evidence saying polygamists or those drawn to incest are born that way.

If we begin apportioning equal protection for classes that make choices to belong to the class, you'll have to accept polygamists and incest-drawn folks also.

Very well said Gary.

Also, So does this mean we should let Polygamy be legal? Once you make the exception, everything should be legal. Where does it stop. It was man and woman. Now it's not.

Not too sure what the point of the article was as it seemed to be another "lets all get along" ideas.

Thing is we can't all get along because who we are differs, there are tons of people just at work I barely agree with, so how is that going to happen worldwide?

Homosexuality is a sin, a preversion and if that isn't somehow obvious to you, without even reading a Bible, then peace be to you.

I'm always amazed we live in a world that prides itself on "intelligence" and how we have evolved and discovered how much more we know compared to last generations of people, but we can't seem to figure out that a man having sex with another man might not be OK.

But then again we have lost belief (do we even use the word anymore ) and think we have most of life figured out...kinda the same story that happened in Babylon...

I am a Christian. There are zero references to homosexuality from Jesus. Zero. If it were truly an important issue, he would have said so.

He did call us to love God with all our heart and our neighbors as ourselves. I read that as giving all our brothers the same rights - including marriage. This issue is a diversion from what we should really be worried about - taking care of our poor. To that Jesus had lots to say.

Many Christians and non-Christians see this issue for what it is - hypocritical and anti-thetical to what Jesus taught us.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

I'm glad the court has recognized same sex marriage. Now it is time to stop persecuting polygamy. After all, if 3 or more people wish to be married together, who are you to say they can't and interfere with their happiness and privacy.

As a practicing Catholic, I can not condone homosexual marriage. However, the term marriage has historically been used with overt religious meanings; why not start using terminology in it's proper context-marriage as a religious ceremony that is binding to the rules of the religious group and therefore allowed it's boundaries. The government contract established between two people to share legal rights and obligations has nothing to do with religion, and should be kept separate. It is not the place of the faithful person to judge a situation without all the facts; and unless you place a camera in the home of every homosexual couple, you don't know for sure they are committing a sin. Let's allow unions for all who want joint legal rights (for whatever reason-it's not our business), and leave the "marriage" for those with a religious bent.

We are to hate the sin, not the sinner. As a Christian we must love all people. We are in end times and it is written that this will happen. You cannot force a person to change from their sinful ways but you can show them love and compassion and perhaps then Jesus will come into thier hearts and help them see the truth. Thats the message Christ brings and not mans manipulation of religion.
Blessings to all!

"it makes me sick to my stomach to be even near one - but thats me - To me this is a perversion of our society, our culture and now our life."

To me, the perversion is the fact that people like you can't treat others as equals. If it makes you sick to be near one, you need help.
But then again, I'm sure Britney Spears' 12 hour marriage really displays the true meaning of marriage.

We should follow the French here. All marriages should be civil unions. You want to get married? you go to the courthouse and you get a civil union. Done. You want to have a religious ceremony, too? You want to sanctify this marriage in front of your god -- go to church and have a big bash there, too.
Your god is not my god --but we are all Americans -- the religious bit should add no more to the civil union than some holy water.

Consider also that by bringing marriage back to religious only category, we may be opening the door to Muslim sharia laws. I don't want those laws to gain a foothold in this country. They are demeaning to women and have no place in the U.S. I feel the same way about any other group ... FLDS, Judaism, Christians, any group that has a legally binding rule that "unequalizes" women.

Ive been married for 25 years and have a wonderful daughter and husband I have been very happy with our life. I also have a gay Father-in-law who lives with me and my husband he's a wonderful man and I have attened his weddings not in the eyes of the law but with family and friends,my point is we are all people the same on the outside we all think and feel things differently so let them be who they are and live there lives the way that we are aloud with out being prejudice just a thought

As a gay man that has lived monogamously with his partner for just over 20 years, I do not want my relationship to be cheapened by likening it to heterosexual marriage. We have had people tell us, but they don’t approve of our lifestyle and then these same people, thinking we are sexual deviants, tell us about how they are swingers, that they cheated on their first two spouses and that they hook up with same sex partners when traveling on business. So, if you please do not compare the love and strength that I receive from my life partner with the heterosexual marriage.

People who believe Marriage began as a religious institution are sadly mistaken. Marriage was invented because of property issues in Rome. It had nothing to do with Steve.

It does not matter if you are for or against gay marriages. In the United States we have what is called, and is one of the foundation blocks of our nation, the separation of church and state.

"Marriage" belongs to the church-side. Being a part of the church-side, there is no place for marriage in the state-side. For any state to issue marriage licenses goes completely against the basic law of "separation of church and state." Why is government issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Why is the church sticking it's nose into business of the state? Why does the church accept the state as an issuing body of a practice of the church?

(Up until just recently, I have always supported the motto "In God We Trust" as a standard upon all coin and paper money issued by the United States, a practice that has been thorough since 1957. Because of the inter-mixed problems, meaning the mixing of church and state, on the gay marriage issue, I can no longer support the mixture of church and state in the motto upon a state issued document.)

I've watched the anti-gay marriage protesters as they spit and scream and treat gay people as "sinners." They reminded me of the way the Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals as lesser than human. Other than being live and in color, these protests mirror the black and white newsreel footages of the taunting and physical abuses initiated by the Nazis upon others.

How pure and righteous many religious believers are. They are right and everyone else is wrong. They will pound their Bible, but will not initiate the practice of love, unless it fits their need. They will spit upon love between two people should that love not fit within their perfect model.

You can pound the Bible or you can choose not too. The Bible is a book written by and promoted by people. It may be devine, it may not be divine. But regardless of questioning the Bible, because the Bible is a human document, the considerations in regards to the planet, as a whole, and the other species, which live upon the Earth with humans, is not taken into the whole equation.

The whole equation is the Earth's ability to continue its life. The Earth's ability to evolve through time allows life to continue. To only follow the teachings of the Bible in regards to marriage and populate more upon the Earth, is certainly, a solution of grave consequences. This ideology of continued population upon the planet just adds to a population of over seven billion. How many more times can this planet take population growth.

Does every human being need to populate? Could it be that the old thoughts contained in the church-side "marriage" be out-of-date with the realizations of today? Let the followers of these out-of-date ideologies keep their belief in marriage.

As the planet evolves within the natural order, which propagates continuation of life , whether the Bible says it is right or not, this order will continue as it has for four billion years. Far greater than the Bible, is the natural evolution of the planet and that ideology is certainly devine.

So, who is to say that gay marriages are a "sin?" Over-population of the Earth has got to be more a "sin," than a simple union between two people of the same sex. A union of love should never even be considered a sin, but killing off, in regards to over-population, our ability to exist certainly is a sin.

At least, as Americans, we must honor the rule of separation of church and state and do everything within our power to keep the church and the state separate. Whether it be the removal of the motto "In God We Trust," from our money or pushing the word marriage out of our government and back to the church.

Issuing bodies of government need to issue documents for civil unions and not call those documents Marriage Licenses. The government has no right to be acting as agents for the church and the church has no right to be setting rules on how the government issues documents for unions of love.

"So far, the presidential election has managed to (mostly) stay out of the territory of divisive issues such as abortion and gay marriage and stick to legislative changes that will affect all of our lives constantly, daily and hourly, like health care, the recession, and the war. Maybe this makes me radical..."

It doesn't make you radical, it makes you practical and clear thinking. Issue voters are stuck in the 60s while the rest of us who realize that we have far more urgent and serious problems facing us right now have to continue to carry the baggage of what feels like their old high school rivalries, having urgent and serious issues that need attention NOW being shoved to the back over things like abortion and whether homosexuals can marry.

Don't get me wrong, both those issues are important and need to be addressed as a society, but making them the focal point at this point of time with all the other serious problems we're facing is akin to worrying about the polish of the brass on the titanic after it hit the ice berg. Who cares if you get your way on those issues if the economy collapses, food shortages get worse, climate change continues to be ignored, energy prices triple over where they already are, due process and our civil rights in general continue to be trampled in the name of the war on terror, and our armed services continue to be weakened by prolonged occupation of a foreign country? Anyone who can say that abortion and gay marriage are more urgent than these problems is suffering from a reality deficit disorder.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." -Jesus Christ

If the world and its respective governments desire homosexual marriages within the secular realm, so be it.

The whole matter only reinforces that the One God and humankind aren't necessarily on the same page.

"... if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

This is EXACTLY CORRECT.

My question is what does this mean for immigration purposes? Does this open the pandora's box for an entire new scam immigration industry? Will their be a "Pink Card" exception to the Green Card way of obtaining U.S. citizenship based on marriage?

There is no right to privacy in the constitution as is claimed by this article. That's kinda beside the point though. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general is obviously against nature. I myself am an athiest and still not blind to this fact. I have gay friends, and you should absolutely treat them like anyone else and be kind and loving. But realize it is not the way humanity was meant to be or we wouldn't exist.

She wants the public political debate to be kept to only those issues that "will affect all of our lives constantly, daily and hourly". Ah, I see. So now that two gay men can legally adopt little boys, that somehow isn't going to affect those children "constantly, daily, and hourly"?

She says, "all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it." So a polygamist should be able to get tax deductions for all his wives? How about his mistresses? How about tax deductions for those whose orientation is animals?

I'm not arguing pro or con on the issue. I am, however, arguing that the author's reasoning is so seriously flawed as to be laughable.

Consider also that by bringing marriage back to religious only category, we may be opening the door to Muslim sharia laws. I don't want those laws to gain a foothold in this country. They are demeaning to women and have no place in the U.S. I feel the same way about any other group ... FLDS, Judaism, Christians, any group that has a legally binding rule that "unequalizes" women.

"While I support gays as people, I do not believe their way of life is the best for them..."

Then you do not, in fact, support gays as people. Sexual orientation is an inextricable part of who each of us is as a person.

Homosexual people don't need the "support" of those who believe they are sinners undeserving of the same basic rights enjoyed by heterosexual people. What they need are for people to realize that parts of the Bible were written by ancient people whose words reflect their ancient fears and prejudices. What they need -- what ANYBODY needs -- is to be treated equally.

Very well said Gary.

Also, So does this mean we should let Polygamy be legal? Once you make the exception, everything should be legal. Where does it stop. It was man and woman. Now it's not.

This is not an attack on religion... it has NOTHING to do with religion.

Being atheists, my wife and I are married by law, and not by any church. This is all that gay couples are asking for. They are not asking to be married in a Baptist church, or any other house of worship. They are seeking equal recognition, responsibilities and benefits as my wife and I enjoy UNDER THE LAW.

Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something.

There is no right to privacy in the constitution as is claimed by this article. That's kinda beside the point though. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general is obviously against nature. I myself am an athiest and still not blind to this fact. I have gay friends, and you should absolutely treat them like anyone else and be kind and loving. But realize it is not the way humanity was meant to be or we wouldn't exist. Acceptance needs to stop somewhere.

Excuse me, but what exactly is the point of this "article"?

You say "...my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Then you say you hope that we don't focus on it in the election.
Well why the hell not, if it's a legitimate issue of people's rights?

I am sad that the national debate doesn't even focus on why the state is granting 'marriages'. Traditionally 'marriage' had nothing to do with the state and was considered a personal and/or religious commitment, whose circumstances and reasons varied across faiths and cultures. The idea that being married has anything to do with the state is a fallacy. The state should be granting everybody, gay or straight, a civil union, for legal purposes, and churches should be marrying people. I think it's sad that we don't even discuss this in America.

The 'divorce' comment is PERFECT! Why is divorce so readily accepted, while 2 people who love each other criticized. We don't want to be married under 'your' GOD, we want the benefits. This is where the debate gets SO ignorant! You take your 'marriage' benefits for granted. I could live with my partner for 20 years and still not be able to see him in the hospital in some states. What does 'G-O-D' have to do with who I love? Why do Christians think that their religion is the ONLY religion that exists? This is supposed to be America, a place where we have freedom of religion. If you live here and think you're free, you're wrong. I live in this country as a second class citizen and that is acceptable to most! I think any American should have a problem with a group of people being ostracized for who they love. My partner fought for this country in Iraq, but cannot marry. How is that acceptable? You're sending soldiers the message that its ok for you to give your life for my rights, but not your own.

How does anti-gay prejudice harm society? What is harmful to society is the constant degradation of fathers and husbands; the abuse hysteria, the criminalization of male poverty, the psychotic divorce rate, mass incarceration, etc.

Real marriage is in tatters, and we're debating gay marriage? Get a life.

Tiff - I wonder if you would still consider yourself sinful if you were only capable of feeling sexual and romantic attraction to people of the same sex. That's the gay experience. Chances are, if you had any inclination to lead an honest, fulfilled life, as most people do, that didn't entail lying to everyone around you, left and right, day in and day out, you would see beyond your conservative blinders as so many gay people end up doing who, like you, grew up in a homophobic environment.

I know his mother is a deeply religious Catholic woman who goes to mass every day and who is also Dan's best friend. I'm guessing she's happy for him.

Claire you shouldn't be writing on subjects which reveal your ignorance. Any "devout Catholic mother" of a gay son would first "love always the son" but forever hate the "sin."

Real love doesn't confirm people in their sins which may well lead them to an enternity of separation from God, otherwise known as hell. I read with sadness the "freedom" many gays now feel. The truth is, this is anything but freedom, license yes, freedom no way. Real freedom is the ability to know and do what's in our best interest, as God made us.

Marriage is from God, period. It's also God's plan (at least in most marriages), for procreation. The family is the builidng block of society, necessary for civilization to exist. Gay "so called marriage" is UNDOING what God intended, against natural law (the "parts simply don't fit), and most of all, support of it is anything BUT love.

For anyone trying to live in God's will and hope for the salvation of his/her soul, the repulsion against gay marriage is a no brainer. The irony is, it's the Christians, especially the Catholic chruch, who are the ones doing the "most loving." Like China and Burma, we could all be swept up in a natural diaster by the stroke of midnight.

How anyone could not want or desire to be "right with God, our creator", is nothing more than man failing to live not only in Truth but his own humanity. To believe otherwise, especially for the sake of "being hip, being with the times, or being tolerent" is simply to fall for the great lie of Satan,who's greatest claim is in having us believe he doesn't really exist.

"As far as California's governance over marriage is concerned, my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Exactly!
Either grant ALL the rights and freedoms of marriage AS marriage or abolish the concept of marriage in favor of civil unions and do the same as previously mentioned!

Whatdya mean, "gets to be" the wife?

Sounds like you think that is the privileged position, Camel Jockey.

But perhaps a question like that would be better directed to Dan Savage's website.

Good Luck.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

John - you are wrong. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it request Separation of Church and State. No where.

Homosexuality is a sin. That's all there is to it.

I don't believe we should be a sky-god country, so I have a problem with any argument that evokes a sky-god, vis a vis, Bibles, Korans, et al. So, since the church is just someplace where people go to talk to themselves, and marriage is part of that system, then if people want to carry on they should be allowed to, regardless of their sexuality. If you're going to have faith in a mythical being then you might as well allow all people who want to believe in it to do so. Personally, as a person in a same sex relationship for 29 years, I'd like to know that my partner will be allowed to visit me in a hospital should something happen; or, we should be allowed tax breaks that are at least as good as two-and-three-time divorced and remarried people. But, if the issue is bowing before a sky-god, what's the problem?

My question is what does this mean for immigration purposes? Does this open the pandora's box for an entire new scam immigration industry? Will their be a "Pink Card" exception to the Green Card way of obtaining U.S. citizenship based on marriage?

This is not an attack on religion... it has NOTHING to do with religion.

Being atheists, my wife and I are married by law, and not by any church. This is all that gay couples are asking for. They are not asking to be married in a Baptist church, or any other house of worship. They are seeking equal recognition, responsibilities and benefits as my wife and I enjoy UNDER THE LAW.

Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something.

I might not beleive in what you do. But i will fight tooth and nail for your freedom to do it.

I am a Christian. There are zero references to homosexuality from Jesus. Zero. If it were truly an important issue, he would have said so.

He did call us to love God with all our heart and our neighbors as ourselves. I read that as giving all our brothers the same rights - including marriage. This issue is a diversion from what we should really be worried about - taking care of our poor. To that Jesus had lots to say.

Many Christians and non-Christians see this issue for what it is - hypocritical and anti-thetical to what Jesus taught us.

Why did the government begin giving tax breaks to married couples? I'm not sure of this answer, but IF it's because they have more financial burdens due to the fact that they are most likely starting a family, raising children, paying for college, etc, then NO, gay people should not get the same benefits in marriage as everyone else. Yes, there are straight couples that don't have kids and gay couples that adopt, but the majority of "normal" marriages start a family with 1 or more children, while the vast majority of gay marriages never have the financial burden/stress of raising a family.

Now if these tax breaks and benefits are just because "these people love each other and are committed to one another"... then okay, they deserve all the legal rights, but I somehow doubt that's the reason why these benefits are bestowed on married couples.

Interesting point of view, it is too bad that this has become a winner or loser discussion already. There are folks who don't agree and would not have agreed regardless of the decision. It is an issue with a lot of people and we have to listen to each other and try and find common ground or realize that the end result will be bad for everyone. Getting married is important to those involved in it and reducing to a legal issue means that it is a business transaction and not a personal and to some yes a "holy" matter. Where is the line you want to draw or is there one about who can get married, when and how many times. Let's take a trip to Texas.

If God approved same sex marriages, why did He create a man and a woman in the first place? :-)

And what's wrong with polygamy? Did I miss something?

So if we're going to depart from the traditional definition of one man and one woman for marriage, does this mean people of other alternative lifestyles such as polygamy should also be granted legal recognition by the state? If we're going to issue marriage licenses to those of the homosexual orientation, how about those of the non-monogamous orientation?

I agree with Mikie, "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."

You said: "...my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Any tax payer? ANY? Fathers and grown daughters? Brothers and sisters? Polygamists?

Everyone likes to take the simple approach to this. It's not that simple is it?

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw one at all? It gets down to who has the right to define marriage? In a democracy, the majority does. And the majority did speak, voting to ban gay marriage.

Yes, you can cry civil rights, but gays are NOT a protected class. Protection is granted to classes that did not choose their class. There is currently no sound evidence saying that gays are born gay (despite what they claim), just as there is no evidence saying polygamists or those drawn to incest are born that way.

If we begin apportioning equal protection for classes that make choices to belong to the class, you'll have to accept polygamists and incest-drawn folks also.

My question is what does this mean for immigration purposes? Does this open the pandora's box for an entire new scam immigration industry? Will their be a "Pink Card" exception to the Green Card way of obtaining U.S. citizenship based on marriage?

This could be the the impetus for a second civil "war." Hopefully, this time it can be done legislatively rather than militarily.

Gay rights are important. Clean needles for drug abusers are important. Birth control for middle-school girls is important.

However, some of us want a society with rules and laws that are to be followed and obeyed.

Some don't want to define a distinction between right and wrong.

Let's split the difference with an amicable separation.

Instead of the rediculous wall between us and Mexico, I suggest a wall down the middle of the continental U.S.A. Libertarians on one side and people who want structure and consistency on the other.

one nation under god? that seems funny to me when we celebrate other gods in our daily life. where's the push to remove Tuesday (Norse god Tyr), Wednesday (for Wodin or Odin if you prefer), Thursday (Thor's Day), or Friday (Norse goddess Frigg) from the week?

January, February and March are all named for other gods. what about that?

You bangers are really confused about how reality works. I think you are pathetic in the sense that you think you have the right to judge. When the reality is, is that god never gave you a stick to judge someone with. And those of you that go off on "What next animals" tangents are just as rediculous and President Bush. Grow up, expand a little bit, and get over yourselves. You are all just a bunch of monkeys like the rest of us.

The history of marriage has only a bit to do with any church. It is essentially derived from laws regarding property that were developed over the years in various societies, especially that of the English. Just like a man owned a farm, he also owned his wife and children until such time that the chidren married. The religious aspect is important ot many people, obviously, but marriage is a civil institution, not just a religious one. So, let those that wnat to marry in a church do so and let those others that want to marry in a civil ceremony do so, too--even if they are of the same gender.

I am a Christian. There are zero references to homosexuality from Jesus. Zero. If it were truly an important issue, he would have said so.

He did call us to love God with all our heart and our neighbors as ourselves. I read that as giving all our brothers the same rights - including marriage. This issue is a diversion from what we should really be worried about - taking care of our poor. To that Jesus had lots to say.

Many Christians and non-Christians see this issue for what it is - hypocritical and anti-thetical to what Jesus taught us.

How does anti-gay prejudice harm society? What is harmful to society is the constant degradation of fathers and husbands; the abuse hysteria, the criminalization of male poverty, the psychotic divorce rate, mass incarceration, etc.

Real marriage is in tatters, and we're debating gay marriage? Get a life.

The 'divorce' comment is PERFECT! Why is divorce so readily accepted, while 2 people who love each other criticized. We don't want to be married under 'your' GOD, we want the benefits. This is where the debate gets SO ignorant! You take your 'marriage' benefits for granted. I could live with my partner for 20 years and still not be able to see him in the hospital in some states. What does 'G-O-D' have to do with who I love? Why do Christians think that their religion is the ONLY religion that exists? This is supposed to be America, a place where we have freedom of religion. If you live here and think you're free, you're wrong. I live in this country as a second class citizen and that is acceptable to most! I think any American should have a problem with a group of people being ostracized for who they love. My partner fought for this country in Iraq, but cannot marry. How is that acceptable? You're sending soldiers the message that its ok for you to give your life for my rights, but not your own.

I agree with what was said in the article, except that those religious types who think it's wrong to be gay should be tolerated in our society at all. It's a telling comment, the zealot above who expressed his disgust and sick feelings he experiences when he considers homosexuality. These people are unaware of their own feelings of homosexuality, and unable to deal with them, those feelings manifest as repulsion, dark rage, and ultimately violence. We can't let these religious people be around our children, for that sickness, that inner hate experienced by the Christian directed inwards as a reaction to their own feelings of sexual guilt, now that's the real disease. And it will spread to the minds of the innocent. Let's go no further to appease these dark priests, who cannot help but molest the minds of the innocent, if not their bodies.

"And by the same token, I think people who believe that homosexuality is against God should be respected for their beliefs."

The most ignorant sentence I've read in a long time. A belief has no inherent value. You respect people's rights to HAVE beliefs, you don't have to respect the belief itself.

If Christians want to be hateful bigots, fine. You must respect their right to do so, but you don't have to respect the bigotry.

I told a person one time that you can have a belief system for anything you want. That is everyones free will.

There is a tradgic problem with this though. Great to live by, your choice. When it comes to leave for another world and face your choices, it is terrible to die by.

Can not push the delete button. Can not play it over. It is tradgic to be blinded not understanding where you are going.

The government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage. Marriage is an interpersonal covenant, and should not be a legal entity. The government should, however, be in the business of sanctioning socioeconomic partnerships, and they should be available to anyone--husband and wife, two sisters, an adult taking care of his or her widowed parent, etc. Socioeconomic partnerships should receive the benefits married pairs now receive. Marriages should be outside the realm of government interference and within the realm of non-governmental organizations, be they churches or social associations.

What gives a minority group the right to change the very definition of an institution (marriage) that has endured for thousands of years? Why not just establish a new institution (i.e. civil unions)with rights equal to the original institution? Why? Because that would not have the same impact advancing the agenda of gays being accepted as "normal", as would the public being forced to accept that their relationship is no different than that of the traditional married couple. Advancing the agenda is the goal. Otherwise, civil unions with benefits equal to marriage would be just the ticket, and everyone would be satisfied. Why else the insistence on "marriage"?

Marriage is a religious definition.

Why can't the CA supreme court figure that out?

Grant homosexuals the right to "civil unions" with the same economic and legal benefits as heterosexuals. This shouldn't be an issue.

Then Everyone's happy. Or gay - another word with new definition.

I agree, let churches have their church. Its just a building anyway right? Isn't church a community that is supposed to worship their god through actions not just attending sunday mass and listing to hate speach?

I swear if my state (MD) tries to ban gay marriage I'm going to start a petition to ban divorce. That in my eyes is the only way to ensure every child has a mother and father barring single unwed mothers and death.

Give me a break, just give me the same rights to share my benefits with my partner for the same costs married people do. (free) Not through power of attorney or any other leagel matter which ins some states (VA) is illegal outright!

The 'divorce' comment is PERFECT! Why is divorce so readily accepted, while 2 people who love each other criticized. We don't want to be married under 'your' GOD, we want the benefits. This is where the debate gets SO ignorant! You take your 'marriage' benefits for granted. I could live with my partner for 20 years and still not be able to see him in the hospital in some states. What does 'G-O-D' have to do with who I love? Why do Christians think that their religion is the ONLY religion that exists? This is supposed to be America, a place where we have freedom of religion. If you live here and think you're free, you're wrong. I live in this country as a second class citizen and that is acceptable to most! I think any American should have a problem with a group of people being ostracized for who they love. My partner fought for this country in Iraq, but cannot marry. How is that acceptable? You're sending soldiers the message that its ok for you to give your life for my rights, but not your own.

I understand your article about privacy, but I do not believe your thinking went far enough.
Marriage is a covenant that was made by religious organizations and adopted by governments.
Governments got involved to supposedly prevent incestuous and other dangerous unions, but the real reason seems to be more legal than anything.
Government should get out of the marriage game and let Churches have the final word, as they did for many years arround the world. Eliminate the legal issues surrounding marriage and this issue stops being a national litigation debate.

I have been married for 43 years and have yet to hear an intelligent reason why my marriage will be in jeopardy if gay people marry. Just won't happen. If a marriage is good, what difference does the status of anyone else's marriage have on mine? And, by the way, all the world's homophobes are going to have to do a lot of fast talking when they get to the Pearly Gates to explain why they are filled with hate.

My wife and I got married by the town Justice Of The Peace. Neither of us ever sets foot in a church. We have a very happy marriage and we do not understand how our marriage is 'threatened' or 'diminished' by other couples, same sex or not, who wish to do the same.

We both know many people of various sexualities, straight, gay, trans-gendered, and, guess what, THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, and they are entitled to EVERY right that we all enjoy as Americans. Please read the beginning of the Declaration Of Independence again before you spout your hatred.

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to call your union marriage. Why not be happy with a union. You guys get upset because we(christians) don't want to accept gay marriage. But marriage is from God. He set the fondation for marriage. IF YOU WANT TO BE GAY FINE, BUT DON'T CALL IT A LEGAL MARRIAGE UNDER GOD BECAUSE IT IS NOT. So the goverment can say what they want but you will never be considered as married in my eyes.

As a gay man that has lived monogamously with his partner for just over 20 years, I do not want my relationship to be cheapened by likening it to heterosexual marriage. We have had people tell us, but they don’t approve of our lifestyle and then these same people, thinking we are sexual deviants, tell us about how they are swingers, that they cheated on their first two spouses and that they hook up with same sex partners when traveling on business. So, if you please do not compare the love and strength that I receive from my life partner with the heterosexual marriage.

Sheesh! Poligamy is out of the question because it would cause logistical havvoc for the IRS and give poligimist more rights than others. Not going to happen very soon.

We're still just talking about 2 people here! Who cares what 2 people? ("I now pronounce you man and duck")

Congrats to California! We in the land of the frigid north salute you. :D

To the rest of you who seem to have problems accepting this - you go on and on about the 'sanctity' of marriage. Perhaps your church marriages are, to you, sacred, but joinings ruled over by the government have nothing at all to do with religion. Seperation of church and state and all, eh? You might think it's wrong, but it's still discrimination to allow one group of people one thing under a legal system, and not allow it to another.
Not to mention that you've been doing a fine job of dissolving the sanctity of marriage yourselves - what's the divorce rate, again? Last I heard /that/ was against the Bible, too.

Additionally, to those of who who are making illogical leaps to polygamy or beastiality - where are your heads? The issue here is with /consenting adults/. Beastiality? No consent is issued on the part of the animal, therefore, not legal. Polygamy? If it's the brand where you get religious prophets saying that marrying thirteen and fourteen-year-olds is good, those girls aren't adults. They cannot consent, legally. If it's between three (or more) consenting adults what does it matter to you? They're not hurting anyone.
There doesn't seem to be any issue here to me - you're just pulling these leaps that defy any kind of logic right out of your you-know-wheres.

I'm glad the court has recognized same sex marriage. Now it is time to stop persecuting polygamy. After all, if 3 or more people wish to be married together, who are you to say they can't and interfere with their happiness and privacy.

I don't understand how gay people having equal protection under the law affects straight marriage in any way. People who are alredy married are going to stay married, their lives will be unchanged. It's not as if all straight people are going to suddenly say. "oh, I could have married Steve instead of Rhonda?" Gay people are a minority. It is wrong to allow a majority to vote on a minority's rights. If we write discrimination into the State's constitution, what's next? Will we then amend it to say marriage can only be between one man and one woman of the same race? What then will be done about bi-racial people or multi-racial people. Would they have to marry someone of the same racial mix? This is ridiculous. This country was founded on equality and equal protection under the law. The government only started issuing marriage licenses in the first place so that they could make sure that whites were marrying whites and that blacks were marrying blacks. Either the state provides the same protections for everyone, or they don't offer state sanctioned marriage at all. This is about commited couples being recognized as a family. This is about their children having the same protections as straigh couple's children. This is about protection of property and benefits. Why would anyone want to deny any person their basic human rights. Once you take it away from one group, you set the precedent for it to be taken away from another. Is that the direction we want to head as a State, as a Nation? I don't think so.

Okay, same sex marriage is okay and legal. So should polygamy be legal?? Once you make an exception to the original, between man and woman, you have to make all the exceptions. At what point do you say it was established this way for a reason? It was this way, because it's right.

The government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage. Marriage is an interpersonal covenant, and should not be a legal entity. The government should, however, be in the business of sanctioning socioeconomic partnerships, and they should be available to anyone--husband and wife, two sisters, an adult taking care of his or her widowed parent, etc. Socioeconomic partnerships should receive the benefits married pairs now receive. Marriages should be outside the realm of government interference and within the realm of non-governmental organizations, be they churches or social associations.

I am a white Christian male Kansan with a conservative upbringing, and I have never been able to figure out why it was the government's business what my sexual preference or religious beliefs are.

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Marriage is a religious definition.

Why can't the CA supreme court figure that out?

Grant homosexuals the right to "civil unions" with the same economic and legal benefits as heterosexuals. This shouldn't be an issue.

Then Everyone's happy. Or gay - another word with new definition.

I told a person one time that you can have a belief system for anything you want. That is everyones free will.

There is a tradgic problem with this though. Great to live by, your choice. When it comes to leave for another world and face your choices, it is terrible to die by.

Can not push the delete button. Can not play it over. It is tradgic to be blinded not understanding where you are going.

The history of marriage has only a bit to do with any church. It is essentially derived from laws regarding property that were developed over the years in various societies, especially that of the English. Just like a man owned a farm, he also owned his wife and children until such time that the chidren married. The religious aspect is important ot many people, obviously, but marriage is a civil institution, not just a religious one. So, let those that wnat to marry in a church do so and let those others that want to marry in a civil ceremony do so, too--even if they are of the same gender.

Hey Mikie, What do you mean by "real marriage" I'm a Gay Canadian and my marriage is very real. My commitment to my marriage is not contingent on your or a church's opinion. Maybe the church should come under fire. It is the only place in America where one can be openly hateful and hide it under the guise of GOD.....not just to Gays but to women as well.
And Mikey, this is not the first time in American history that the "who should be allowed to marry" issue has caused a stir. Not so long ago marriage was only allowed between people of the same race (whites could not marry blacks). In the sixties that changed and the world did not burst into flame.

For anybody that thinks it is a simple thing to have your county courthouse marry any couple, regardless of what might be permitted in a given church, consider this: I am an atheist and my husband is agnostic. When we went to the county courthouse to get married, the marriage ceremony was full of Christian prayers. Knowing how important it was to me, that I not swear an oath on the basis of a deity in which I do not believe (making my oath a lie), my husband asked for a secular ceremony. The judge was very obviously put out by this, and then she was unable to come up with a ceremony in which God was not mentioned. The one she finally chose had me swearing to obey my husband according to God's law! We had to have her just drop phrases from that ceremony in order to get through an otherwise very special moment for both of us.

Legally, we have a separation of church and state. But functionally, there is none in most parts of the country. A very clear statement must be made in order for individuals to have even the most basic freedoms - unless of course they are Christian and heterosexual (and white, in most places), at which point they can have it all. Leaving this issue as a state-by-state choice will only keep it from being dealt with at all, because at the local level the "secular" authorities will do as they please, according to their own narrow religious beliefs.

"States rights" is fine only as long as the States uphold their responsibility. Since they seem unable to do so, it should become a federal issue.

Unfortunately, I agree that it will be a shame if this returns as a counter-productive issue that overwhelms matters of much greater importance in this election.

I am sad that the national debate doesn't even focus on why the state is granting 'marriages'. Traditionally 'marriage' had nothing to do with the state and was considered a personal and/or religious commitment, whose circumstances and reasons varied across faiths and cultures. The idea that being married has anything to do with the state is a fallacy. The state should be granting everybody, gay or straight, a civil union, for legal purposes, and churches should be marrying people. I think it's sad that we don't even discuss this in America.

I would have to agree with Tiff. We as Christians should have love and compassion for all people. As a human, it is sometimes difficult because we are also designed with emotions. However, one thing we forget is that at the core of every successful society is a successful family unit: A father and a mother teaching their children in the way they should go. When we start deviating from this, we naturally start running into problems. It is not just the gay community that contributes to this separation. It is also the spouses who cheat and lie to each other, "swingers", drug users, alcoholism etc. I could make a very long list. Unless we empower and support marriage and the family as planned by God, we may as well allow pets and their owners to be married, which probably isn't far off.

The real message in this article is:

"Hey voters, ignore the whole collapse of civilization thing in California where 4 judges overturned the will of the People, and vote for Obama anyway."

Not too sure what the point of the article was as it seemed to be another "lets all get along" ideas.

Thing is we can't all get along because who we are differs, there are tons of people just at work I barely agree with, so how is that going to happen worldwide?

Homosexuality is a sin, a preversion and if that isn't somehow obvious to you, without even reading a Bible, then peace be to you.

I'm always amazed we live in a world that prides itself on "intelligence" and how we have evolved and discovered how much more we know compared to last generations of people, but we can't seem to figure out that a man having sex with another man might not be OK.

I've yet to see an article that deals with the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, without masking it under some constitution or other idea or movement. Not one can deal with the act of a man having sex with a man and asking if that is right or wrong. For example is the "love" arguement. If I love my wife and he loves he then its the same thing, they love each other and have that "right"...its always masked. Deal with the actual issue and it should be pretty obvious that it is wrong...if you can't see that, then oh well...

You said: "...my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Any tax payer? ANY? Fathers and grown daughters? Brothers and sisters? Polygamists?

Everyone likes to take the simple approach to this. It's not that simple is it?

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw one at all? It gets down to who has the right to define marriage. In a democracy, the majority does. And the majority did speak, voting to ban gay marriage.

Yes, you can cry civil rights, but gays are NOT a protected class. Protection is granted to classes that did not choose their class. There is currently no sound evidence saying that gays are born gay (despite what they claim), just as there is no evidence saying polygamists or those drawn to incest are born that way.

If we begin apportioning equal protection for classes that make choices to belong to the class, you'll have to accept polygamists and incest-drawn folks also.

Sheesh! Poligamy is out of the question because it would cause logistical havvoc for the IRS and give poligimist more rights than others. Not going to happen very soon.

We're still just talking about 2 people here! Who cares what 2 people? ("I now pronounce you man and duck")

So if you child comes home and annouces they are Gay and about to be married you celebrate?

'So Jesus said to them, "You try to justify your actions in front of people. But God knows what's in your hearts. What is important to humans is disgusting to God.'

If we were originally created Adam & Steve there would be no argument today because there would be no people!

I am sad that the national debate doesn't even focus on why the state is granting 'marriages'. Traditionally 'marriage' had nothing to do with the state and was considered a personal and/or religious commitment, whose circumstances and reasons varied across faiths and cultures. The idea that being married has anything to do with the state is a fallacy. The state should be granting everybody, gay or straight, a civil union, for legal purposes, and churches should be marrying people. I think it's sad that we don't even discuss this in America.

It does not matter if you are for or against gay marriages. In the United States we have what is called, and is one of the foundation blocks of our nation, the separation of church and state.

"Marriage" belongs to the church-side. Being a part of the church-side, there is no place for marriage in the state-side. For any state to issue marriage licenses goes completely against the basic law of "separation of church and state." Why is government issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Why is the church sticking it's nose into business of the state? Why does the church accept the state as an issuing body of a practice of the church?

(Up until just recently, I have always supported the motto "In God We Trust" as a standard upon all coin and paper money issued by the United States, a practice that has been thorough since 1957. Because of the inter-mixed problems, meaning the mixing of church and state, on the gay marriage issue, I can no longer support the mixture of church and state in the motto upon a state issued document.)

I've watched the anti-gay marriage protesters as they spit and scream and treat gay people as "sinners." They reminded me of the way the Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals as lesser than human. Other than being live and in color, these protests mirror the black and white newsreel footages of the taunting and physical abuses initiated by the Nazis upon others.

How pure and righteous many religious believers are. They are right and everyone else is wrong. They will pound their Bible, but will not initiate the practice of love, unless it fits their need. They will spit upon love between two people should that love not fit within their perfect model.

You can pound the Bible or you can choose not too. The Bible is a book written by and promoted by people. It may be devine, it may not be divine. But regardless of questioning the Bible, because the Bible is a human document, the considerations in regards to the planet, as a whole, and the other species, which live upon the Earth with humans, is not taken into the whole equation.

The whole equation is the Earth's ability to continue its life. The Earth's ability to evolve through time allows life to continue. To only follow the teachings of the Bible in regards to marriage and populate more upon the Earth, is certainly, a solution of grave consequences. This ideology of continued population upon the planet just adds to a population of over seven billion. How many more times can this planet take population growth.

Does every human being need to populate? Could it be that the old thoughts contained in the church-side "marriage" be out-of-date with the realizations of today? Let the followers of these out-of-date ideologies keep their belief in marriage.

As the planet evolves within the natural order, which propagates continuation of life , whether the Bible says it is right or not, this order will continue as it has for four billion years. Far greater than the Bible, is the natural evolution of the planet and that ideology is certainly devine.

So, who is to say that gay marriages are a "sin?" Over-population of the Earth has got to be more a "sin," than a simple union between two people of the same sex. A union of love should never even be considered a sin, but killing off, in regards to over-population, our ability to exist certainly is a sin.

At least, as Americans, we must honor the rule of separation of church and state and do everything within our power to keep the church and the state separate. Whether it be the removal of the motto "In God We Trust," from our money or pushing the word marriage out of our government and back to the church.

Issuing bodies of government need to issue documents for civil unions and not call those documents Marriage Licenses. The government has no right to be acting as agents for the church and the church has no right to be setting rules on how the government issues documents for unions of love.

Marriage is a religious definition.

Why can't the CA supreme court figure that out?

Grant homosexuals the right to "civil unions" with the same economic and legal benefits as heterosexuals. This shouldn't be an issue.

Then Everyone's happy. Or gay - another word with new definition.

The history of marriage has only a bit to do with any church. It is essentially derived from laws regarding property that were developed over the years in various societies, especially that of the English. Just like a man owned a farm, he also owned his wife and children until such time that the chidren married. The religious aspect is important ot many people, obviously, but marriage is a civil institution, not just a religious one. So, let those that wnat to marry in a church do so and let those others that want to marry in a civil ceremony do so, too--even if they are of the same gender.

"And by the same token, I think people who believe that homosexuality is against God should be respected for their beliefs."

The most ignorant sentence I've read in a long time. A belief has no inherent value. You respect people's rights to HAVE beliefs, you don't have to respect the belief itself.

If Christians want to be hateful bigots, fine. You must respect their right to do so, but you don't have to respect the bigotry.

I told a person one time that you can have a belief system for anything you want. That is everyones free will.

There is a tradgic problem with this though. Great to live by, your choice. When it comes to leave for another world and face your choices, it is terrible to die by.

Can not push the delete button. Can not play it over. It is tradgic to be blinded not understanding where you are going.

Not too sure what the point of the article was as it seemed to be another "lets all get along" ideas.

Thing is we can't all get along because who we are differs, there are tons of people just at work I barely agree with, so how is that going to happen worldwide?

Homosexuality is a sin, a preversion and if that isn't somehow obvious to you, without even reading a Bible, then peace be to you.

I'm always amazed we live in a world that prides itself on "intelligence" and how we have evolved and discovered how much more we know compared to last generations of people, but we can't seem to figure out that a man having sex with another man might not be OK.

I've yet to see an article that deals with the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, without masking it under some constitution or other idea or movement. Not one can deal with the act of a man having sex with a man and asking if that is right or wrong. For example is the "love" arguement. If I love my wife and he loves he then its the same thing, they love each other and have that "right"...its always masked. Deal with the actual issue and it should be pretty obvious that it is wrong...if you can't see that, then oh well...

So if you child comes home and announces they are Gay and about to be married you celebrate?

'So Jesus said to them, "You try to justify your actions in front of people. But God knows what's in your hearts. What is important to humans is disgusting to God.'

Cliff, when the day comes you are allowed to marry your dog I want that right, too. For now I'd be happy to marry the ONE person I am in love with.

Mandelay: You raise a good question. My understanding is that government has historically believed that it should promote families and the raising of children. Whether or not this is simply old-fashioned or conservative thinking, or academically proven to be the right thing is the question I believe you should be asking.

It's possible that it is beneficial to the economy for college graduates to postpone marriage and work 80-hour weeks until the age of thirty. On the other hand, it's also possible that the economy is better supported by workforce settling down as early as possible. I'd like to see economists and psychologists answer this question before congress passes radical new laws.

My question is: if we allow consenting adults to get married, regardless of gender, why should it stop there? If they are agreeable to it, any combination of adults should be allowed to be married: 1 man & 2 women, or 3 men and 1 woman, etc. In fact, if the state has no right to limit private actions between consenting adults, then incest (between adults) should not be banned either. It's not really any different.

The problem of government granting recognition of gay marriage is that the courts have fundamentally changed a definition of a word that has meant something for millennia. True, its scope has been narrowed before to be only between one man and one woman, but it has never been broadened. If the courts can suddenly change the legal definition of marriage by decree, where does it stop? Maybe they will change the definition of "ownership" or "privacy".

If the govenment wants to bestow the same benefits on gay couples, they should create a new word for it, and then recognize that as a new right. While they're at it, they should knock sex out of the definition all together so that two elerly spinster sisters can have legal status, for example. They could go further and stop recognizing marriage at all so that every couple of any flavor is recognized; leaving marriage to the excusive domain of the church.

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

I assume you feel the government should in no way be in the business of regulating morals as they relate to marriage. I would thereby assume that you feel poligamy and the marriage of underage girls to older men should not be regulated since it would institute a moral stance by a government that you say should be in the morals business. Maybe you should go immediately to Texas and demand the the stat release the 400+ children to their parents since the state has drawn a line using morals as a ruler.

Or are you saying that the state can set moral standards as long as they are the same as your standards?

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Wow, you Americans are such alarmist, egocentric morons! "The world is coming to an end"!? I hope America is, with any luck; but other parts of the world not founded on a fundemantlist and biggoted mentality (thanks to your endless contradiction of the supposed religion about 'love' that spends so much time hating others) are doing just find progressing towards an equal and loving society.

I think a law should be passed that allows all the American homosexuals special visa permission to get the hell out of your country and find somewhere where people's minds aren't a seething mash of propaganda and hatred disguised as heavenliness. Only in an American christian forum could someone support Hitler and not seem out of place.

I hope you all evolve, one day, and realise how unlike Christ you all actually are.

I understand your article about privacy, but I do not believe your thinking went far enough.
Marriage is a covenant that was made by religious organizations and adopted by governments.
Governments got involved to supposedly prevent incestuous and other dangerous unions, but the real reason seems to be more legal than anything.
Government should get out of the marriage game and let Churches have the final word, as they did for many years arround the world. Eliminate the legal issues surrounding marriage and this issue stops being a national litigation debate.

The real message in this article is:

"Hey voters, ignore the whole collapse of civilization thing in California where 4 judges overturned the will of the People, and vote for Obama anyway."

Cliff, when the day comes you are allowed to marry your dog I want that right, too. For now I'd be happy to marry the ONE person I am in love with.

all if have to say is...

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

As a catholic and a lesbian and growing up very very much a part of the roman catholic faith it really makes me sad that these anti-gay rights "because its against gods will" people can't live by a couple simple things:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. "

God doesn't care who you are, whether hetero, homo, black, white, asian, american, middle eastern, if you are a good person, treat others with respect and dignity and not judge based on their personal lives/beliefs I honestly believe thats all that should ever matter!

one nation under god? that seems funny to me when we celebrate other gods in our daily life. where's the push to remove Tuesday (Norse god Tyr), Wednesday (for Wodin or Odin if you prefer), Thursday (Thor's Day), or Friday (Norse goddess Frigg) from the week?

January, February and March are all named for other gods. what about that?

My wife and I were married 12 years 11 months ago by my mother who was deputized by the county for the day. Respect to everyone's belief but the only thing that God had to do with our ceremony was that it took place in a shallow pool under a waterfall on a beautiful day. The wonder of nature (God) created our amazing cathedral for the day but other than that... no mention of religion. Just lots of love and commitments.

The main reason folks are upset is because they don't understand homosexuality and its been deomonized for so long.

Personally I don't care because I don't want to sleep with anyone but my wife so its none of my business.

I don't understand the space shuttle either but I don't want all scientists to die!

Work on your own lives and stay out of ours!

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Tiff - I wonder if you would still consider yourself sinful if you were only capable of feeling sexual and romantic attraction to people of the same sex. That's the gay experience. Chances are, if you had any inclination to lead an honest, fulfilled life, as most people do, that didn't entail lying to everyone around you, left and right, day in and day out, you would see beyond your conservative blinders as so many gay people end up doing who, like you, grew up in a homophobic environment.

I assume you feel the government should in no way be in the business of regulating morals as they relate to marriage. I would thereby assume that you feel poligamy and the marriage of underage girls to older men should not be regulated since it would institute a moral stance by a government that you say should not be in the morals business. Maybe you should go immediately to Texas and demand the the stat release the 400+ children to their parents since the state has drawn a line using morals as a ruler.

Or are you saying that the state can set moral standards as long as they are the same as your standards?

To answer the question posed in the title of this article, I believe I was married by God, not by goverment. I don't accept the goverments authority to decide who is married anymore than I accept the goverments authority to decide who is baptized.

Much of europe has it right: the government must marry you, after which you may go to a church and have it blessed if you so choose.

As an Evangelical Pastor in Canada where gay marriage has been legalized for several years, I too was once afraid of the state recognition of gay marriage leading to "greater attacks on the church." That hasn't happened. In fact since it happened there has been little debate about it. Everybody has moved on - even those in the Evangelical Church. It seems we've come to terms with gay marriage and accepted that even if we did think homosexuality is "wrong", stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying does not prevent the practice that many Evangelicals still find offensive nor does it legitimize it.

I personally have believed for a long time that all people - regardless of who they are or who they love - should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Each church and faith group should come to their own decision about whether to bless or not bless gay marriages and it should be up to the individuals getting married in the eyes of the law as to whether they desire to seek some form of spiritual blessing. Of course I do believe that people of strong religious conviction who believe gay marriage is wrong should still be able to refuse to bless these marriages (after all the separation of church and state should go both ways - church should not expect state to uphold its beliefs about marriage and the state should not require the church to bless its understanding of marriage). So far so good on this regard in Canada.

Congratulations all those now able to to be legally married in the US.

Cliff, when the day comes you are allowed to marry your dog, I want that right, too. For now, I'd be happy to marry the ONE person I am in love with.

Not too sure what the point of the article was as it seemed to be another "lets all get along" ideas.

Thing is we can't all get along because who we are differs, there are tons of people just at work I barely agree with, so how is that going to happen worldwide?

Homosexuality is a sin, a preversion and if that isn't somehow obvious to you, without even reading a Bible, then peace be to you.

I'm always amazed we live in a world that prides itself on "intelligence" and how we have evolved and discovered how much more we know compared to last generations of people, but we can't seem to figure out that a man having sex with another man might not be OK.

I've yet to see an article that deals with the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, without masking it under some constitution or other idea or movement. Not one can deal with the act of a man having sex with a man and asking if that is right or wrong. For example is the "love" arguement. If I love my wife and he loves he then its the same thing, they love each other and have that "right"...its always masked. Deal with the actual issue and it should be pretty obvious that it is wrong...if you can't see that, then oh well...

all if have to say is...

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

As a catholic and a lesbian and growing up very very much a part of the roman catholic faith it really makes me sad that these anti-gay rights "because its against gods will" people can't live by a couple simple things:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. "

God doesn't care who you are, whether hetero, homo, black, white, asian, american, middle eastern, if you are a good person, treat others with respect and dignity and not judge based on their personal lives/beliefs I honestly believe thats all that should ever matter!

Seperation of church and state is to keep this country from becomming what the church did in medival times. But, it is not set up to forbid people of faith from taking office, passing laws, and respecting what this nation was founded on. If you have read any of the founding fathers and what they had to say about what drove them, and what ideals they believed in, the nation now is far from that.

Sadly, with this decision it is just another step to reduce and end Christian religion. Basically forcing a sinful choice upon those who chose not to partake of this. Also, this isn't a private matter as the writer stated. Right now a private decision to sin is being now forced upon the masses and to rewrite how marriage is defined. Years ago Sodomy was illegal, and now that it is not illegal, and that the people who practice it can "marry," the line in the sand has been erased. Since marriage is now for whoever feels they want it, what is to stop adults from wanting to marry little kids legally? How about those who want to marry their mothers or marry their dogs? Now that marriage and the God given definition of it has been removed, we in this country have now decended upon a slippery slope that there might not be a return from.

This isn't a victory but a major defeat.

Jesus said it best.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Turn the other cheek.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Jesus was all about equal rights and equality in general. In fact if you re-read the chapter where he heals the Roman officers servant you will see that the reference indicates they were probably a gay couple. Even if that is too much to wrap your bigoted brains around you can't deny that most of Jesus healing work was among the poor and those that society considered the bottom of the barrel. Jesus did NOT judge and yet people think they are emulating Jesus when they say one group should have less rights than another.

Anyone who pulls that "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap should be ashamed of themselves. Jesus loved everyone equally and never counted one sin as any better or worse than any other.

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to call your union marriage. Why not be happy with a union. You guys get upset because we(christians) don't want to accept gay marriage. But marriage is from God. He set the fondation for marriage. IF YOU WANT TO BE GAY FINE, BUT DON'T CALL IT A LEGAL MARRIAGE UNDER GOD BECAUSE IT IS NOT. So the goverment can say what they want but you will never be considered as married in my eyes.

The government, state or federal, has no business making moral judgments. The only one they have a right to uphold is the protection of individual rights, and that covers theft, murder, rape, child molestation, graft, etc. When it comes to what is done by consenting adults, it's none of their business. I repeat, NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. This premise is so profoundly important that our country or any other country cannot be called free until it is incorporated into the rule of law. Period. This protects not only the rights of gays, but the rights of the many religions and non-religious philosophies that make up society at large.

The tradeoff with freedom is if you want your freedom, you have to be willing to give freedom to others. If you want to have the freedom to practice your religion, than you have to give others the freedom to practice theirs. If you want freedom of speech than you have to give others their freedom of speech even if you don't agree with the things they have to say.

Nature is explicit. The sexual organs were made for a distinct final purpose: procreate! The pleasure that comes with it is just 'the hook' for a man and a woman to engage.

If you have or 'are born' with tendencies that point you to like another person of the same sex, you should guide yourself to what nature gave you and what is your resposability. If you don't want to have children and don't want to engege in a relationship with a person from the opposite sex that is a free and correct choice too. But lets not the correct way of Nature and the formation of Society by trying to impose our new wills.

Lets also not conufe to behave freely with 'License' ( going beyond freedom ).

If I have the tendency to like killing people should I be allowed and by the ratification of the Court of California be allow to kill anybody??
at will??

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Just thought everyone here might like to see how the Bible condemns homosexuality. The author of this (in my opinion, bad) article, only vaguely references the old testament. Here are many clear passages from the old and new testament. Now, if someone says the Bible does not condemn homosexuality you can call them a liar. In the Bible there are also MANY references to God unleashing his wrath on un-holy nations.

Ok here are the verses:

Narrative references to homosexual behavior
Sodom...
Genesis 19:4-11

homosexual rape..
Judges 19

Lev. 20:13... Here is a passage you cant argue with:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New testament
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:8-11
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

In the end I leave God to judge but I do believe in maintaining a Godly nation with Godly morals and laws.

Mandelay: You raise a good question. My understanding is that government has historically believed that it should promote families and the raising of children. Whether or not this is simply old-fashioned or conservative thinking, or academically proven to be the right thing is the question I believe you should be asking.

It's possible that it is beneficial to the economy for college graduates to postpone marriage and work 80-hour weeks until the age of thirty. On the other hand, it's also possible that the economy is better supported by workforce settling down as early as possible. I'd like to see economists and psychologists answer this question before congress passes radical new laws.

i'm hindu living in America. every time i get upset when somebody knocks on my door tries to enlighten me with christian beliefs. will they be receptive if i knock on their door tell them what they believe is wrong should believe what i believe. you can believe that gay is sin or not, but you can keep that to yourself. you don't have to force others to believe what you believe. i don't think gays didn't come to your living room begging you to believe.

I am sad that the national debate doesn't even focus on why the state is granting 'marriages'. Traditionally 'marriage' had nothing to do with the state and was considered a personal and/or religious commitment, whose circumstances and reasons varied across faiths and cultures. The idea that being married has anything to do with the state is a fallacy. The state should be granting everybody, gay or straight, a civil union, for legal purposes, and churches should be marrying people. I think it's sad that we don't even discuss this in America.

This could be the the impetus for a second civil "war." Hopefully, this time it can be done legislatively rather than militarily.

Gay rights are important. Clean needles for drug abusers are important. Birth control for middle-school girls is important.

However, some of us want a society with rules and laws that are to be followed and obeyed.

Some don't want to define a distinction between right and wrong.

Let's split the difference with an amicable separation.

Instead of the rediculous wall between us and Mexico, I suggest a wall down the middle of the continental U.S.A. Libertarians on one side and people who want structure and consistency on the other.

The government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage. Marriage is an interpersonal covenant, and should not be a legal entity. The government should, however, be in the business of sanctioning socioeconomic partnerships, and they should be available to anyone--husband and wife, two sisters, an adult taking care of his or her widowed parent, etc. Socioeconomic partnerships should receive the benefits married pairs now receive. Marriages should be outside the realm of government interference and within the realm of non-governmental organizations, be they churches or social associations.

I am a white Christian male Kansan with a conservative upbringing, and I have never been able to figure out why it was the government's business what my sexual preference or religious beliefs are.

Tim: You're categorized as intolerant because you are. The "gay agenda" isn't to make you gay. It's to allow everyone the same rights you have. If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. When someone shows up at my door with a bible and thinks they need to "teach me about God", it offends me. But I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Simply put, you can't show me any way that a person being gay, or being in a loving committed relationship with someone of the same sex harms you in any way. A loving marriage between two people of the same sex in no way diminishes your marriage, or anyone's, that happens to be man-woman. I've never seen anything outside of rhetorical or religious claims. None of that proves any legal basis to ban marriage. Until I hear someone say HOW it harms another marriage, I'll continue to dismiss it as ludicrous.

As for the "slippery slope" arguments. Well, if we don't allow gay marriage, next thing you know, we'll go back to banning interracial marriage, and then people from different states won't be allowed!!! See how easy it is to make up some stupid argument based on a slippery slope?

Just thought everyone here might like to see how the Bible condemns homosexuality. The author of this (in my opinion, bad) article, only vaguely references the old testament. Here are many clear passages from the old and new testament. Now, if someone says the Bible does not condemn homosexuality you can call them a liar. In the Bible there are also MANY references to God unleashing his wrath on un-holy nations.

Ok here are the verses:

Narrative references to homosexual behavior
Sodom...
Genesis 19:4-11

homosexual rape..
Judges 19

Lev. 20:13... Here is a passage you cant argue with:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New testament
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:8-11
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

In the end I leave God to judge but I do believe in maintaining a Godly nation with Godly morals and laws.

Thank you for this wonderfully thought-out and written piece. Yes, there are other countries around the world that recognize same sex marriages, and they have not fallen into anarchy or been wiped off the face of the planet by the Hand of God. Marriage is a contract between two people and that contract allows them all of the protections the government affords. Why can't gay people enjoy these same protections in this country? I'm so glad you put it right out there when you mentioned how the same sex marriage issue became the dominating factor in the last presidential election because it's so true! The Republicans used that issue to divide and distract the country from the real issues and deficiencies of the Bush administration knowing that would get him elected again. Our country has fallen into ruin not because a few states have allowed gay people the same rights as their other citizens, but because half the country became sheep and allowed themselves to be frightened by an issue that had no right being an issue. People forget that, again, marriage is a contract...a wedding takes place (for the most part) in church. If churches don't want to perform wedding ceremonies for gay people, there are plenty of other places they can go for a ceremony. The important thing is that they have the contract that allows them all the same rights as everyone else in the country who chooses to enter into a long-term partnership. It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriages were against the law in this country, and we don't seem to have suffered by allowing that to happen. People who want to thump their Bibles and say gay people are evil need to READ the Bible and understand all of the passages surrounding those few verses that refer to "men laying with men." Those refer to a specific time, place and group of people and I believe it is more sinful to pull a verse out of context to use as a weapon against someone you don't like or understand. I was always under the impression that God was about love, so why do so many people in this country use God's name to spew such hateful things against another group of people? We need leaders who lead based on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws of the land NOT the laws of the Bible. Look at God's laws in the Old Testament. I know today's Christians do not follow those laws because, as I've been told, they don't accurately represent society today. So why are the few lines referring to homosexuals yanked out and held up as still relevant? It makes no sense! People use the Bible to suit their own needs but I don't think anyone actually reads or interprets it correctly. Gay people contribute to this country in many way, yet they are still refused the same legal rights that everyone else in the country enjoys. Gays are expected to pay taxes to a government that won't allow them a tax break if they want to enter into a long-term partnership but that seems to be okay. It's a very frustrating issue but hopefully we will elect some new leadership that will give ALL Americans the rights and freedoms they are guaranteed.

The tradeoff with freedom is if you want your freedom, you have to be willing to give freedom to others. If you want to have the freedom to practice your religion, than you have to give others the freedom to practice theirs. If you want freedom of speech than you have to give others their freedom of speech even if you don't agree with the things they have to say.

in this case:Gay Marriages----is it better to break the law of the land and risk making people angry? or to break the law of GOD and risk damnation. As a GOD fearing person and believing in the word of God stated in the bible, I would not want to break the LAW of GOD. I have a daughter who is gay and lives with her partner, sometime ago she asked me if I would attend their wedding (her n her partner) when they are able. I said NO!!!! For if I do I might as well hand her soul to Satan and also risk my own judgement from God. I love my daughter and I have made it clear to her that I am here for her but NOT IN THAT CAPACITY. I cannot change her but God can and all I can do is pray for her and her partner. I am sure she will ask me again the same request of attending her wedding now that the ban has been lifted and my answer? NO

If marriage isn't by government, then eliminate the 1,100+ special rights given to heterosexual couples who are married!

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. End of discussion.

As an Evangelical Pastor in Canada where gay marriage has been legalized for several years, I too was once afraid of the state recognition of gay marriage leading to "greater attacks on the church." That hasn't happened. In fact since it happened there has been little debate about it. Everybody has moved on - even those in the Evangelical Church. It seems we've come to terms with gay marriage and accepted that even if we did think homosexuality is "wrong", stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying does not prevent the practice that many Evangelicals still find offensive nor does it legitimize it.

I personally have believed for a long time that all people - regardless of who they are or who they love - should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Each church and faith group should come to their own decision about whether to bless or not bless gay marriages and it should be up to the individuals getting married in the eyes of the law as to whether they desire to seek some form of spiritual blessing. Of course I do believe that people of strong religious conviction who believe gay marriage is wrong should still be able to refuse to bless these marriages (after all the separation of church and state should go both ways - church should not expect state to uphold its beliefs about marriage and the state should not require the church to bless its understanding of marriage). So far so good on this regard in Canada.

Congratulations all those now able to to be legally married in the US.

Amazing how many empty arguments are whirring. I am a Christian and believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. But that is beside the point on the legal side of things - the US is not a Christian nation, so why would I expect our laws to reflect Christian values?

The real question for the government and population is social. Where does it stop? I agree with the atheist who asked that practical question. If marriage, which has been the foundation of nearly all societies throughout history - not just Christian societies, is whatever we choose to make it, then what might this great social experiment do for the next generation? I feel the same with serial divorce - forget the moral side. How is it affecting society? If anything, morality was created by God or by "survival of the fittest" (take your pick) for our own benefit. Do we really choose to chuck it without some careful thought to the consequences???

That's what bugs me most about the pro-gay arguments - they act like to question it is to be a religious bigot. It avoids the discussion really getting to the social level, where it belongs.

I agree wholeheartedly! Gay marriage is no big deal to me. I don't understand why people get upset over it. The government can't force churches to marry homosexuals, just like they can't force the Catholic church to allow women to be priests. They allow each church to make their own decision. Let's hear it for religious freedom!

As for the Bible- I read it, I respect it, I love it, I've studied it IN CONTEXT. Many of the parts need to be taken with a grain of salt. How many wives did Abraham have? If it's in the Bible, polygamy must be ok too right? Oh, btw, Sarah was his half sister. Incest must be allowed as well.

God doesn't exist. As soon as all of you, and the rest of the world, can get over this religion b.s. the sooner we can all start living happier lives and caring about things that actually matter. Whether or not gay people in California are getting married does not effect your way of life. It doesn't. Get over it.

What has religion done for you except turn you into biggots and send your sons and daughters to war?

It's wrong, it's not a marriage, it is an abomination to GOD. When I lived with my room-mate and we shared expenses. We were not married. If we did have sex ... that is private. But in taking an abomination and making it legal ... that is not religious freedom. That is taking a private situation and making it public.
Do Not Twist the Word of GOD. He does not change ... and then we can talk about the divorce thing as well. For that is a shame.

It sounds from the article that marriage should be permissible between siblings, grandfathers and granddaughters, and the like. After all, "if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it."

Why arbitrarily draw the lines at 2 people to a marriage, and why exclude children from the process? What's wrong with a brother marrying his sister? According to Ms. Hoffman's argument- nothing.

Why seeking for excuses in Religious persecution and trying to portray gay as a rightful victim? Not only the Bible detests it, there are many other religions detest same sex inter-cross.

First, same sex union is anti-nature. It does not preserve human nature which has been developed for some of thousand of years. There are very well reasons for our fore-fathers and fore-mothers through out these thousands of years detest same sex inter-cross.

Now, because of the Bill of Rights, people started to exploit the possibility to abuse their rights and breaking the wellness of nature and civil engagement.

Gay can be described as a psychological illness. And it is just like normal illness and can be rectified. However, instead of helping the twisted mind people back to the right track, you people started a riot because of shames inside you couldn't bare and you refuse to admit your mental illness. And now you demand for a legal letter to shut up the voice of those who bares rightful mind against the destructive acts toward human nature.

And it is out of your desperation of putting a new cloth to cover the factual shame with the word democratic, so you yourself can feel better?

Even it gets acceptant in legal responsibility, the shame inside is still remain because your cloth only covers outer shell leaving the inner spoils unfixed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, come to your sense and effort yourself to preserve the order of the nature for humanity.

I strongly urge voters not to vote for any politicians who supports same sex marriage with any excuses based on the abuse of the Bill of Right, which is not intended to be written for this purpose. Any politician seeks fame over destructive acts of human race and corruption of their local residents should not be put into the office to serve the community.

Marriage is a religious (but not necessarily Christian) definition.

Why can't the CA supreme court figure that out?

Grant homosexuals the right to "civil unions" with the same economic and legal benefits as heterosexuals. This shouldn't be an issue.

Then Everyone's happy. Or gay - another word with new definition.

Scottilla,

In that case, perhaps we truly need to have universal health care here as well. Don't you agree? BTW, are you a bigot or are you simply ignornant and homophobic?????????????????????????

I'm glad the court has recognized same sex marriage. Now it is time to stop persecuting polygamy. After all, if 3 or more people wish to be married together, who are you to say they can't and interfere with their happiness and privacy.

To all Christians -

Your responsibility is to live your lives in such a way that, when we see how joyful and at peace you are, the rest of us will *want* to join your community and adopt your way of thinking. Nowhere do Yeshua (Jesus) or any of his apostles direct Christians to impose their views on the rest of society through government or force. If you buy into Revelations, then you'll get your chance to judge the rest of us come the end of time, but for now, like it or not, your goal is to live as a people apart from the world, not as masters of it.

Health insurance, inheritance, citizenship, hospital visitation, and child custody are all matters of law and state, which Yeshua would no doubt defer to Caesar (government). If you refuse to acknowledge homosexual unions as divinely sanctioned within your own communities, that's your perogative. But, again, it's not your job to enforce that view upon the rest of us.

Don't worry - if we're really so miserable in our sin then you shouldn't have much trouble convincing us, through your example, that we ought to believe and live as y'all do.

This issue is very simple. It is a fact of law that as far as the government is concerned marriage is a secular certification. The government doesn't have any religious authority, nor do I think would people want it to have such. Marriage in the eyes of the government has nothing to do with religion. In your own personal eyes it can have everything to do with religion, and that's fine.

Applying religious aspects to government marriage certifications would be unconstitutional anyway, and it would have enormous problems that go well beyond the issue of gay marriage. What about marriage of atheists? You can't claim that homosexual marriage is "against religion" without defining a specific religion that specifically says so as the one that will be used to make that judgment. Then what about the marriage of anyone who is not of that religion? No Hindus could get married then? No Buddhists? etc?

Its nonsense. Marriage law in America is currently secular, it makes no mention of God. That is added by individuals of their own choice. This isn't a theocracy, and your personal religious beliefs can't deny homosexuals the right to marry the people that they love. The California decision is completely right, according to current law discrimination against homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

It's wrong, it's not a marriage, it is an abomination to GOD. When I lived with my room-mate and we shared expenses. We were not married. If we did have sex ... that is private. But in taking an abomination and making it legal ... that is not religious freedom. That is taking a private situation and making it public.
Do Not Twist the Word of GOD. He does not change ... and then we can talk about the divorce thing as well. For that is a shame.

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to call your union marriage. Why not be happy with a union. You guys get upset because we(christians) don't want to accept gay marriage. But marriage is from God. He set the fondation for marriage. IF YOU WANT TO BE GAY FINE, BUT DON'T CALL IT A LEGAL MARRIAGE UNDER GOD BECAUSE IT IS NOT. So the goverment can say what they want but you will never be considered as married in my eyes.

In 1949, California was the first state to make it legal for Blacks and Whites to inter-marry. The exact same arguments were made then as now. Is there anyone now who will say that Black and Whites should be restricted by law from marrying? Then neither should gays be denied.

This was the last barrier to any consenting adults being allowed to be legally bound. Horray for California and Massachusettes!

Posted on May 16, 2008 11:45

"Nick:
People who believe Marriage began as a religious institution are sadly mistaken. Marriage was invented because of property issues in Rome. It had nothing to do with Steve."

Then there wasn't marriage before the Romans? Damn you are stupid. Get your ass an education.

Posted on May 16, 2008 11:35

Most of the comments I've read don't address the actual issue: Is homosexuality moral?
It shouldn't be a discussion about who has the right to legislate marriage; the church or government. But it should be a discussion of what the public believes is acceptable behavior.
After all, most laws are based on what the public finds offensive or acceptable.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people that still believe that homosexual behavior is immoral and wrong. Not just because of religiious beliefs, but that it is an unnatural act.

We should have learned a long time ago that you cannot legislate morality, and you cannot change people's minds by passing laws. After all, it wasn't too long ago that we dealt with prohibition, the right for women to vote, and segregation.

As long as a majority of the public views homosexuality as wrong or immoral, there will continue to be court battles such as the one in California. But, just because CA says gay marriage is legal doesn't give you the rights and benefits that straight couples have.
Just because CA recognizes gay marriage doesn't mean that any other state will.

So, instead of bashing people for their beliefs, belittling people because they are or are not religious, and generally making asses out of yourselves, lets have a civil and open discussion of the real subject: Is homosexuality right or wrong in the eyes of the majority of the people?

To all Christians -

Your responsibility is to live your lives in such a way that, when we see how joyful and at peace you are, the rest of us will *want* to join your community and adopt your way of thinking. Nowhere do Yeshua (Jesus) or any of his apostles direct Christians to impose their views on the rest of society through government or force. If you buy into Revelations, then you'll get your chance to judge the rest of us come the end of time, but for now, like it or not, your goal is to live as a people apart from the world, not as masters of it.

Health insurance, inheritance, citizenship, hospital visitation, and child custody are all matters of law and state, which Yeshua would no doubt defer to Caesar (government). If you refuse to acknowledge homosexual unions as divinely sanctioned within your own communities, that's your perogative. But, again, it's not your job to enforce that view upon the rest of us.

Don't worry - if we're really so miserable in our sin then you shouldn't have much trouble convincing us, through your example, that we ought to believe and live as y'all do.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

Things like gay pride parades and gays in S.F. CA have done more to make me resent gay crying than anything else. I have a gay family member that I love very much, He does not hide the fact,nor does he go out of his way, with the poor me bit. I do not even consider the though of me kissing another man, but if you do fine. This ruling will hurt gays in the futher, just watch.

Hey Mikie, What do you mean by "real marriage" I'm a Gay Canadian and my marriage is very real. My commitment to my marriage is not contingent on your or a church's opinion. Maybe the church should come under fire. It is the only place in America where one can be openly hateful and hide it under the guise of GOD.....not just to Gays but to women as well.
And Mikey, this is not the first time in American history that the "who should be allowed to marry" issue has caused a stir. Not so long ago marriage was only allowed between people of the same race (whites could not marry blacks). In the sixties that changed and the world did not burst into flame.

Marriage should be between TWO unrelated human beings. Period.

No matter hwo many times I hear the slippery slope arguement, it's stupidity still amazes me. Didn't anyone pay attention in debate class back in high school? I know it's been a while for most people, but still....

I love my wife. We are both consenting adults who enjoy forming a family unit and living our lives together. How in anyones definition of heaven and hell does that equate to also wanting to moleste and marry small children or to elope with a dog? Seriously? Are people so afraid of actual adults having responsible relationships that they have to say it will lead to this?

I go with my wifes theory: those who are against gay marriage are just jealous because we're having better sex.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

Posted on May 16, 2008 11:45

"Nick:
People who believe Marriage began as a religious institution are sadly mistaken. Marriage was invented because of property issues in Rome. It had nothing to do with Steve."

Then there wasn't marriage before the Romans? Damn you are stupid. Get your ass an education.

I read all the posts, my friends don't panic its just a wave sooner or later it will be over. Its like fashion wave, whenever new fashion comes everyone makes a hue and cry about but in the end what is right lasts forever.
When gays realize that they need to outsource babies production to china or India the it will open people's eyes for what they have opted for.

Patience and everyone will get the right answers.
until then cheers

Whatever the history of marriage, it is closely tied with religious beliefs. I therefore think that it is a conflict between church and state for the state to define what marriage is or is not. For anyone.

The state should define benefits and responsibilities for civil unions - and who can entered into them - say consenting adults and leave marriages to religious institutions. Then congregations can be as restrictive or as open as they please.

As an Evangelical Pastor in Canada where gay marriage has been legalized for several years, I too was once afraid of the state recognition of gay marriage leading to "greater attacks on the church." That hasn't happened. In fact since it happened there has been little debate about it. Everybody has moved on - even those in the Evangelical Church. It seems we've come to terms with gay marriage and accepted that even if we did think homosexuality is "wrong", stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying does not prevent the practice that many Evangelicals still find offensive nor does it legitimize it.

I personally have believed for a long time that all people - regardless of who they are or who they love - should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Each church and faith group should come to their own decision about whether to bless or not bless gay marriages and it should be up to the individuals getting married in the eyes of the law as to whether they desire to seek some form of spiritual blessing. Of course I do believe that people of strong religious conviction who believe gay marriage is wrong should still be able to refuse to bless these marriages (after all the separation of church and state should go both ways - church should not expect state to uphold its beliefs about marriage and the state should not require the church to bless its understanding of marriage). So far so good on this regard in Canada.

Congratulations all those now able to to be legally married in the US.

I am confused why people on this post are comparing gay marriage to polygamy, marrying children, etc.

Marriage = TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That rules out marrying a minor, inanimate object, or just about any other ridiculous union people could come up with. It also rules out polygamy. Stop making these inane comparisons. Allowing a gay couple to get married is not going to lead to legalization of any of these things.

For those that think God is not real- your faith must be great(in man). I'm sorry you can believe in so many that have tried to disprove God and his laws because of the sin that clouds their vision- The homosexual lifestyle is one of these clouds. Rooted in the "BELIEF" of evolution and the nonexistence of God , they try to disprove God. -The sad thing is everyone wants freedom to sin but many want to take away the freedoms of the Church and what we believe in. (IE homeschooling and creation / God teaching). Fact is.. If you take God out of Public thought you destroy the foundation of what some people (Christians) live their life on. - Why do we have to live our life on the ever changing (MAN) views.

I wish there was another candidate in this race, the gay one!

Amazing how many empty arguments are whirring. I am a Christian and believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. But that is beside the point on the legal side of things - the US is not a Christian nation, so why would I expect our laws to reflect Christian values?

The real question for the government and population is social. Where does it stop? I agree with the atheist who asked that practical question. If marriage, which has been the foundation of nearly all societies throughout history - not just Christian societies, is whatever we choose to make it, then what might this great social experiment do for the next generation? I feel the same with serial divorce - forget the moral side. How is it affecting society? If anything, morality was created by God or by "survival of the fittest" (take your pick) for our own benefit. Do we really choose to chuck it without some careful thought to the consequences???

That's what bugs me most about the pro-gay arguments - they act like to question it is to be a religious bigot. It avoids the discussion really getting to the social level, where it belongs.

Things like gay pride parades and gays in S.F. CA have done more to make me resent gay crying than anything else. I have a gay family member that I love very much, He does not hide the fact,nor does he go out of his way, with the poor me bit. I do not even consider the though of me kissing another man, but if you do fine. This ruling will hurt gays in the futher, just watch.

To all Christians -

Your responsibility is to live your lives in such a way that, when we see how joyful and at peace you are, the rest of us will *want* to join your community and adopt your way of thinking. Nowhere do Yeshua (Jesus) or any of his apostles direct Christians to impose their views on the rest of society through government or force. If you buy into Revelations, then you'll get your chance to judge the rest of us come the end of time, but for now, like it or not, your goal is to live as a people apart from the world, not as masters of it.

Health insurance, inheritance, citizenship, hospital visitation, and child custody are all matters of law and state, which Yeshua would no doubt defer to Caesar (government). If you refuse to acknowledge homosexual unions as divinely sanctioned within your own communities, that's your perogative. But, again, it's not your job to enforce that view upon the rest of us.

Don't worry - if we're really so miserable in our sin then you shouldn't have much trouble convincing us, through your example, that we ought to believe and live as y'all do.

Thank you for this wonderfully thought-out and written piece. Yes, there are other countries around the world that recognize same sex marriages, and they have not fallen into anarchy or been wiped off the face of the planet by the Hand of God. Marriage is a contract between two people and that contract allows them all of the protections the government affords. Why can't gay people enjoy these same protections in this country? I'm so glad you put it right out there when you mentioned how the same sex marriage issue became the dominating factor in the last presidential election because it's so true! The Republicans used that issue to divide and distract the country from the real issues and deficiencies of the Bush administration knowing that would get him elected again. Our country has fallen into ruin not because a few states have allowed gay people the same rights as their other citizens, but because half the country became sheep and allowed themselves to be frightened by an issue that had no right being an issue. People forget that, again, marriage is a contract...a wedding takes place (for the most part) in church. If churches don't want to perform wedding ceremonies for gay people, there are plenty of other places they can go for a ceremony. The important thing is that they have the contract that allows them all the same rights as everyone else in the country who chooses to enter into a long-term partnership. It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriages were against the law in this country, and we don't seem to have suffered by allowing that to happen. People who want to thump their Bibles and say gay people are evil need to READ the Bible and understand all of the passages surrounding those few verses that refer to "men laying with men." Those refer to a specific time, place and group of people and I believe it is more sinful to pull a verse out of context to use as a weapon against someone you don't like or understand. I was always under the impression that God was about love, so why do so many people in this country use God's name to spew such hateful things against another group of people? We need leaders who lead based on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws of the land NOT the laws of the Bible. Look at God's laws in the Old Testament. I know today's Christians do not follow those laws because, as I've been told, they don't accurately represent society today. So why are the few lines referring to homosexuals yanked out and held up as still relevant? It makes no sense! People use the Bible to suit their own needs but I don't think anyone actually reads or interprets it correctly. Gay people contribute to this country in many way, yet they are still refused the same legal rights that everyone else in the country enjoys. Gays are expected to pay taxes to a government that won't allow them a tax break if they want to enter into a long-term partnership but that seems to be okay. It's a very frustrating issue but hopefully we will elect some new leadership that will give ALL Americans the rights and freedoms they are guaranteed.

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION.

Hey Guess What, you’re right, God isn't real, there's global warming, Darwin was right, earth's the center of the universe, and the world's flat. Keep your beliefs on science, I’ll keep my faith.

As to the topic, this nation was established as One Nation Under God, if you don’t like it, do what the pilgrims did and leave. No one’s stopping you from going to Canada or Europe. If it’s the land of milk and honey there then leave!

Well, there are many problems with your argument, but I will address one of primary importance:

Marriage is not something *granted* by government, as you seem to assume. Marriage is something *recognized* by government. It is not a mere social construct that we may mold as play-doh in our activist hands. We "advance" at our own peril in this area.

Scottilla,

In that case, perhaps we truly need to have universal health care here as well. Don't you agree? BTW, are you a bigot or are you simply ignornant and homophobic?????????????????????????

Why seeking for excuses in Religious persecution and trying to portray gay as a rightful victim? Not only the Bible detests it, there are many other religions detest same sex inter-cross.

First, same sex union is anti-nature. It does not preserve human nature which has been developed for some of thousand of years. There are very well reasons for our fore-fathers and fore-mothers through out these thousands of years detest same sex inter-cross.

Now, because of the Bill of Rights, people started to exploit the possibility to abuse their rights and breaking the wellness of nature and civil engagement.

Gay can be described as a psychological illness. And it is just like normal illness and can be rectified. However, instead of helping the twisted mind people back to the right track, you people started a riot because of shames inside you couldn't bare and you refuse to admit your mental illness. And now you demand for a legal letter to shut up the voice of those who bares rightful mind against the destructive acts toward human nature.

And it is out of your desperation of putting a new cloth to cover the factual shame with the word democratic, so you yourself can feel better?

Even it gets acceptant in legal responsibility, the shame inside is still remain because your cloth only covers outer shell leaving the inner spoils unfixed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, come to your sense and effort yourself to preserve the order of the nature for humanity.

I strongly urge voters not to vote for any politicians who supports same sex marriage with any excuses based on the abuse of the Bill of Right, which is not intended to be written for this purpose. Any politician seeks fame over destructive acts of human race and corruption of their local residents should not be put into the office to serve the community.

I apologize if you found offensive over my words. May I here ask for your understanding and forgiveness over my language and manner for saying what I concerned deeply for our children and the wellness of the children to come.

As an Evangelical Pastor in Canada where gay marriage has been legalized for several years, I too was once afraid of the state recognition of gay marriage leading to "greater attacks on the church." That hasn't happened. In fact since it happened there has been little debate about it. Everybody has moved on - even those in the Evangelical Church. It seems we've come to terms with gay marriage and accepted that even if we did think homosexuality is "wrong", stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying does not prevent the practice that many Evangelicals still find offensive nor does it legitimize it.

I personally have believed for a long time that all people - regardless of who they are or who they love - should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Each church and faith group should come to their own decision about whether to bless or not bless gay marriages and it should be up to the individuals getting married in the eyes of the law as to whether they desire to seek some form of spiritual blessing. Of course I do believe that people of strong religious conviction who believe gay marriage is wrong should still be able to refuse to bless these marriages (after all the separation of church and state should go both ways - church should not expect state to uphold its beliefs about marriage and the state should not require the church to bless its understanding of marriage). So far so good on this regard in Canada.

Congratulations all those now able to to be legally married in the US.

The core unit of society is the nuclear family. we are seeking to replace a natural order of human behavior with institutions that are unstable, unsustainable, unfair to the rest of society, and shown through history to bring the ruination of a culture.

We are so diverted from true problems that we fail to address the issues that will bring us down as a society. Problem number one is public education and federal control of a system that gets third world results and indoctrinates children to accept a radical and irresponsible "do what you want" generation.

Our country is in trouble, and we all know it. Leadership is non-existent. The courts do not make the laws and our leaders need to assert our right as a nation to make and enforce laws.

Your civil rights end where my and my children and grandchildren begin, and a society that allows same sex marriage, will become a nation of anarchists, who are looking toward government for validation in life that only can be found by natural, human relationships, that being family, and more specifically blood relationships.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

Posted on May 16, 2008 11:45

Nick:
People who believe Marriage began as a religious institution are sadly mistaken. Marriage was invented because of property issues in Rome. It had nothing to do with Steve.

There was no such thing as marriage before the Romans? Dumbass get an education.

My understanding is that this decision was based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. If the law defines marriage between one man and one women, and everyone has equal protection to this law, then it would seem that the justices are being disengenuous or are legislating from the bench.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this legal aspect of the decision?

I agree with what was said in the article, except that those religious types who think it's wrong to be gay should be tolerated in our society at all. It's a telling comment, the zealot above who expressed his disgust and sick feelings he experiences when he considers homosexuality. These people are brainwashed from birth to repress feelings of sexuality, and unable to deal with them, those feelings manifest as repulsion, dark rage, and ultimately violence. He seems to revel in his own disgust, in his own shame. We can't let these religious people be around our children. That sickness, that inner hate experienced by the Christian, directed inwards as a reaction to their own feelings of sexual guilt, now that's the real disease. And it will spread to the minds of the innocent. Let's go no further to appease these dark priests, who cannot help but molest the minds of our children as they've been molested, if not their bodies.

This world anytime soon, there is no more apples for Adam.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson, 1802

QED

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27

for people who do not want to involve religion into this issue, why can't we put a scientific approach to this issue?

legalizing Gay marriage promotes homosexuality. it tells people that it is acceptable and right. homosexual acts involve the copulation of same sex living things. it is not natural. it is deviating from the biological stucture and function of males and females. this not only can be applied to humans but to other living things as well.

why can't we use our intelligence to study the causes of homosexual desires and behavior?
people have come up with scientific explanations for the simplest things. how come we can't do the same for homosexual desires and behavior?

Some of you are so narrow minded I would be sad for you but then I realize you are not living a conscience life. We are all created by the same creator! We are all interconnected! For anyone to condemn, pass judgment, or call sinfully any human being in our society shows how Christ like you are not! Even Christ said for anyone of you that feels they are without sin may cast the first stone. Christ loved and excepted a prostitute as a child of his flock. It is a shame some of you use your God in such an ugly way that you feel the need to cast the first stone. After all it is the heterosexuals that have messed up this "institution" they call marriage in the first place. There is nothing a gay couple can do to that "institution" the heterosexuals haven't already fowled up!

What next? Marrying animals? Of course you are having sex ... Marry them too ... And look who is leading the world ... Is this where we are leading the world? Is that all we can do?

Fix your divorce rates !!!!

The government is not a religious authority, nor should it be. Similarly the church has no political authority, nor should it.

The government is lifting a ban on gay marriage, they cannot however, coerce churches to perform an ceremony they do not wish. Just as they cannot force all churches to baptize or impel them not to collect donations.

Many churches do not agree with the government. The FDLS mormons practice polygamy, some sects use illegal drugs as religious sacrament. Some sects want the government to abandon Israel, others want us to strengthen ties. Many churches ALREADY recognize gay marriages, and yet that does not make them legal contracts. The point is, we don't listen to them to decide on policy because US laws are not beholden to any religion.

This article sucks, mainly because it is trying to confuse the issue of church's rights with government regulations. The government, obviously, is not going to make any church marry any couples they don't want to marry. Churches are free to be bigoted however they wish, they are private organizations. People should be free to cohabitate, raise children and love whomeever they wish, AND get the same benefits (tax and otherwise) as straight married couples.

A marriage is TWO things:

1. A religious ceremony.

2. A legal contract.

To disallow gay people from entering such a common legal contract is not fair. THAT is what is at issue. No church will EVER be forced to marry anyone they don't wish to marry.

It should stop at consenting adults. Yeah not kids, not animals, not vegetables. And I dont see why 10 people couldnt get married. Trust me when people know what it does to their business side to get divorced it wont happen as much. Just make divorce a larger negative and you will stop the bs.

Marriage discriminates against single people.

As much as I would love to believe this is a step in the right direction, I fear its not. Just the comments alone prove my point. I loved the point of "if its regulated.. everyone should get it" If folks are so hell bent on who and who should not be allowed a simple right then take it out completely. I for one believe we'd be in better shape if we just do away with "legal" marriages, those regulated and proceeded over by the government. MY religious belief have nothing to do with the government of the United States of America and their blessing upon who I do and do not marry is ludicrous.

The problem of course, as is so eloquently displayed above and below this comment is ignorance on what folks are really fighting for. I want rights. JUST like YOU! I want to marry, get my SSN penalty, take my tax break, upon my death bed have my partner at my side, and I want to love a child in a family environment WITH the person who I believe is best suited for that job not the one whom's gender matches the one You would prefer I picked.

What I dont want.. Is to share your belief's. Those are yours and yours alone. I have my own thanks, I'm an adult after all and thus have had many years to figure out where my belief system stands. I don't judge you and your beliefs so.. don't judge mine.

I want hands off government really, so I vote to abolish marriage as a governed form of union all together. Get rid of this fight once and for all.
Be Monkeys, I don't care but stay out of my life. Not sure why my life is so interesting to you anyway. So I live in "sin" according to your belief's.. How in the WORLD does that affect you!?

OH ye of little faith, why are you so fearful?

Shadow

god isn't real.

neither are elves.

The rub for me is comparing a marriage by your religion and a marriage done by the government on par with each other. They are not. The first should bebased on love, the second for money. What other reason do couples have to be legally married by a state other than financial gain?

I would prefer a better distinction be made between the two. You are married by your church. Period. (they were here first) I don't believe a government can 'marry' anyone. The government can grant a legal contract between two people to live their lives together for as long as they see fit. I don't care how you live your life, but I would prefer you call it something other than 'married'.

Civil union would be fine.

And for those who don't seem to care what felton has to do with this country anymore really ought to go back and study their history.

At Federalist65: Yes I agree that marriage is not as simple an issue as the person you quoted presented it as. However, claiming that the law should be decided by what the majority believes is also a gross oversimplification. There are MANY things, such as slavery, that were supported by the majority at some point, when they clearly shouldnt have been legal.

The more important issue than whether a law is supported by the majority is if it impedes on the rights of individual citizens. This is why something like polygamy and the marriage between father and daughter are not okay; polygamy undermines the rights of each of the wives and marrying an underage daughter is taking advantage of a minor who is not developed to an extent to make this decision. Not allowing something like gay marriage, however, is specifically taking away rights of gay people.

I understand that religion is an issue here, but don't we preach separation of church and state, and hasn't religion really turned its back on a lot of other marriage issues, for example the plethora of divorce and 24 hour marriages in Las Vegas? It seems hypocritical to me. And claiming that we dont protect groups of people that choose to be involved in them is silly too. Hate groups receive all the same freedom of speech rights that any other citizen does, and they are full of people who make a choice to be in that group.

Marriage is an issue that inherently blurs the lines of church and state by; it is a religious practice that provides extra rights to the citizens involved in them. As soon as it started providing these extra rights, such as making it easy to transfer funds between partners, marriage stopped being a religious issue and became a government issue and it should not be used to deny the rights of its citizens.

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION. TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD, JUDGE THE GAY AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING MORE THAN POISON YOUR SEED FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED.

Tim: You're categorized as intolerant because you are. The "gay agenda" isn't to make you gay. It's to allow everyone the same rights you have. If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. When someone shows up at my door with a bible and thinks they need to "teach me about God", it offends me. But I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Simply put, you can't show me any way that a person being gay, or being in a loving committed relationship with someone of the same sex harms you in any way. A loving marriage between two people of the same sex in no way diminishes your marriage, or anyone's, that happens to be man-woman. I've never seen anything outside of rhetorical or religious claims. None of that proves any legal basis to ban marriage. Until I hear someone say HOW it harms another marriage, I'll continue to maintain the assumption that it's really just that it's icky and you don't want your kind of marriage to be the same as the icky kind.

As for the "slippery slope" arguments. Well, if we don't allow gay marriage, next thing you know, we'll go back to banning interracial marriage, and then people from different states won't be allowed!!! See how easy it is to make up some stupid argument based on a slippery slope?

Just a side note... Historically marriage had nothing to do with the church. The Church got in on the act to shore up succession, and lend a bit of class to the ordeal. In an historical context marriage was an agreement about property rights...nothing more, nothing less. The idea of marriage for love is a relatively recent phenomenon...started happening around the 19th century. All this panting and gnashing of teeth about G-d ordaining marriage is a bunch of hooey. Sure The Bible has a ban on homosexuality...it also has a ban on wearing fabric made of two different types of fiber, and working on the sabbath, and against planting two different crops in the same field...I'm pretty sure these are all punishable by death. Are you wearing poly-cotton blend? If so...well, don't you have a moral obligation to suicide?

Being that I don't believe in existance of God, I don't see how God could have anything to do with marriage.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

I suppose it's ridiculous to make a an obvious an logical appeal to these people but here it goes:

1) Forcing others to adopt and commit to your belief system has NEVER worked on this planet. Never Never Never. YOUR religion is YOURS... Not theirs, not even God's... Religion is MAN-MADE... God would never be so foolish as to limit itself.

2) HATE is the only sin. If you believe his "word" then let him Judge... You spend your time being his servant and spread love, Not Condemnation and Hate... Which by the way are the fastest growing seeds of hate violence and war.

3) YOU and YOUR RELIGION have a TINY sliver of information the universe (and God) is dispelling. Stop pretending you have even the remotest clue what God wants.

You have two choices : Unify or Separate. Unity works Separation doesn't. All you have to ask is which one YOUR CHOICES are rooted in.

Will they file Federal Taxes JOINTLY?

Will they get the SAME Social Security PENALTY as a "normal" married couple or will they get the benefit of two individuals?

When it comes to banning books I vote ban the Bible! It has been the basis for countless acts of violence, hate and death against mankind throughout history. The church needs to stay out of my life and thankfully we have some Courts who will protect ALL people's rights that we were supposed to be given by our constitution. Doesn't it say "equal rights?"

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION. TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD, JUDGE THE GAY AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING MORE THAN POISON YOUR SEED FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED. WHO ARE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PERFECT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED A SIN.

It was not all that long ago, in historical terms, that you could only get married in church, and if your church wasn't the majority church, it wouldn't be counted as a valid marriage. (thinking of Irish whose Catholic marriages weren't recognized by England). To resolve this, the concept of civil marriage arose - all citizens to be allowed a recognition of their marriage by the government without regard to their religious beliefs. In effect, this meant there were two types of marriage, distinct from each other: Civil, which only the government would recognize, and Religious, which the government doesn't recognize (at least in the U.S.). All civil rights that are granted to the married are based only on the civil marriage. Marriages that occur only within the church (the polygamous marriages of certain Mormon sects, for example) are ignored by the government. All of that results from decisions made by governments centuries ago to separate civil authority from religious authority, including our own concept of "separation of church and state", which is *not* how the earliest colonies here governed themselves (see Salem Witch Trials).

The California decision only affects the right to civil marriage. It can't deal with the religious sacrament that's also called marriage, and isn't trying to. So it's more than a little disingeuous to say "worried only about whether Adam and Steve were sanctified by the state", because that's not what the decision says should happen. I myself didn't get married in a church, and the ceremony wasn't particularly religious, but the government recognizes it because we filed a marriage license beforehand. That's all that gays have been asking for, and I think it's their due as American citizens.

If I asked you "When did you last get laid,", you'd be entirely within your rights to say "none of your business!". And you'd be right. It IS none of my business to know when, or with whom, or how. Just as it's none of anyone else's business to know whether the person Adam wants to marry is female or male.

Sadly with this decision, marriage as we know it could be anything. What is to now prevent adults from getting married to their pets, or adults to marry children legally? If you look back years, Sodomy was illegal. Now same sex couples can get married?

for people who do not want to involve religion into this issue, why can't we put a scientific approach to this issue?

legalizing Gay marriage promotes homosexuality. it tells people that it is acceptable and right. homosexual acts involve the copulation of same sex living things. it is not natural. it is deviating from the biological stucture and function of males and females. this not only can be applied to humans but to other living things as well.

why can't we use our intelligence to study the causes of homosexual desires and behavior?
people have come up with scientific explanations for the simplest things. how come we can't do the same for homosexual desires and behavior?

What many forget is that Human law IS ARBITRARY. What is legal today will be illegal a century from now and visa versa. Different countries have different laws through different ages. So, trying to prove something is Right and True based on Human law is illogical.

Religious law doesn't change much. One just has to debate the truth claims/historicity of the religion.

Hence, marriage will be always be debated by people. America use to have a common basic belief system mostly anchored in Judeo-Christian ethics. Now, most of the debate is on overthrowing the underlying ties that bound us together and created the constitution.

I see the US eventually splintering or becoming a third rate nation. "A house divided against itself can not stand".

My understanding is that this decision was based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. If the law defines marriage between one man and one women, and everyone has equal protection to this law, then it would seem that the justices are being disengenuous or are legislating from the bench.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this legal aspect of the decision?

Homosexuality has always been viewed by believing Christians as a sin, just as sex before marriage. Modern "liberalized" men and women have little time or tolerance for God's law, and still others pretend God does not exist.

We will all meet the same God on Judgement day, and our works will be laid bare. Homosexuals, you can feel a strong attraction to members of the same sex, this does not mean you should sodomize them. This is not "love" this is fulfilling your personal sexual satisfaction. God did not create us for the purpose of self indulgence, he create us to be in communion with him. This is only reached through self sacrifice. Self indulgence lands you in hell.

Jesus, taught us that we should love the sinner but hate the sin..when will we wake up.

What the bible says:
It begins in Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Why do we have any laws?

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION. TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD, JUDGE THE GAY AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING MORE THAN POISON YOUR SEED FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED. WHO ARE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PERFECT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED A SIN.

Some keep spewing rhetoric about how gay marriage undermines or "cheapens" the institution of marriage, when in fact the American pop culture has already done exactly that: "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire", Tom Cruise, Britney Spears... yet the same people would conveniently turn a blind eye to that. Tomorrow (5/17) will mark the 3rd year anniversary of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and it is still intact. Bringing children in the picture is even more ridiculous. Not everyone WANTS children. And the most offensive of all is that, while we in the United States claim to have the freedom of religion protected by the Constitution, all these anti-gay people are allowed to vote against something crucial to gay people in the name of God. Where is the freedom?

When it comes to banning books I vote ban the Bible! It has been the basis for countless acts of violence, hate and death against mankind throughout history. The church needs to stay out of my life and thankfully we have some Courts who will protect ALL people's rights that we were supposed to be given by our constitution. Doesn't it say "equal rights?"

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. End of discussion.

Why can't these homosexual unions be given a different name, but afforded the same benefits and penalties as a heterosexual marriage would have? That way, it doesn't infringe on religious or traditional definition of marriage, and is "equal" in the eyes of the law. After all, if a black and a white person have the same rights under the law, even though they have different ethnicity (i.e. name of race), why can a union and a marriage have the same rights?

What next? Marrying animals? Of course you are having sex ... Marry them too. The sad part is that we are trying to FIX the world, change their beliefs , change their customs. Is this where we are leading the world? Is that all we can do?

Fix your divorce rates !!!!

When it comes to banning books I vote ban the Bible! It has been the basis for countless acts of violence, hate and death against mankind throughout history. The church needs to stay out of my life and thankfully we have some Courts who will protect ALL people's rights that we were supposed to be given by our constitution. Doesn't it say "equal rights?"

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27

Reading through the decision I couldn’t help but think that this is a sad outcome for all couples. Not because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married in the first place. Granted striking down the notion of marriage wasn’t before the court and it was not in their power to do, but it is something we should all consider. The legal institution of marriage has been dying on the vine for years and a better outcome for all couples would have been to squeeze them under the heading of domestic registry and eliminate the very notion of marriage in the first place.

The full text of my article should be up in a few hours at www.futureosophy.com

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

Today I've decided to change the definition of the word 'blue' to 'green' and visa-versa. Why? Because I can.

I know that sounds a crazy, but how is it that we think definitions are relative today? Marriage was, is, and has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. This is the exact definition that the Founding Fathers of this country recognized and accepted as truth. And as much as people don't like it, this country's foundation was based on Christian principles. So there is an inevitable relationship between 'church' and 'state'...and it was meant to be that way.

Now, from a civil union perspective (where a same-sex couple can receive that same benefits as married couples), that should be sufficient...but it's not. Same-sex couples want the title; even if words are redefined. If we start to go down that road, who's to say that people won't eventually want to marry their pets?

Some of you have difficulty separating the concepts of personal preference and individual liberty. It should not and does not matter one iota to anyone else except YOU what you think your religion says about homosexuality. You are attempting to enforce a religious "law" that *you* choose to believe on the rest of the country. Constraining others' freedom based on your personal beliefs is about as close to the exact opposite of what it means to be American as you can get.

Did you realize that refusing to go to church on Sunday used to land you in prison? Also, denying the existence of God could get your head chopped off? How nice. Thank goodness we live in a postmodern era where religious and non-religious choices are equally valid. Now if only we could get caught up in the area of identity and sexual orientation.

All Americans are supposed to be equal under the law, correct? Since marriage is a federally-recognized institution, we cannot deny GLBT Americans the right to marry whoever they want. This isn't "special treatment", but simply "equal treatment". Hello? It is quite insulting to have to fight for this.

I *do not* think the states should have any variability on GLBT marriages. We tried something like that during the American Civil War... which didn't work out so well. Let's not continue with a separatist agenda. Equality for all is the only true American way forward.

Frankly, it is a bit shameful that "Free America" has not yet caught up with other countries such as Spain who already respect their GLBT citizens with equal treatment. Shameful indeed. Let's set things right and move on.

In the future, we will be astonished with the very idea that people were actually given a choice to vote against gay marriage. You don't get to vote against that in a country that values freedom for all. Period.

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. End of discussion.

The state will convince us one way or the other that 2+2=5, as Orwell predicted.
We are approaching the boot in the face stage.

By this rerdiculous argument, then we should alos legalize polygamy, incest, and other perversions as long as it is private. Perversion even in a closet eventually ruins a society. It never stays in the closet. How many homosexuals have come out of the closet. Once out of the closet, there is no more right to privacy. The very act of coming out made it a public event. If the gays want to keep it private then why are they always pushing it in a public forum? Do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but don't rub my nose in your perversion, and then expect me to say, "Oh, isn't that nice and respectful." No one can be that blind, I hope, except the writer of this rediculous column.

i just sent in my comments on this gay marriage and you said you cannot post it because I had too many post. well THIS IS MY FIRST TO MAKE A COMMENT ON YOUR SITE

Marriage still discriminates against single people. It is still a discriminatory policy.

for people who do not want to involve religion into this issue, why can't we put a scientific approach to this issue?

legalizing Gay marriage promotes homosexuality. it tells people that it is acceptable and right. homosexual acts involve the copulation of same sex living things. it is not natural. it is deviating from the biological stucture and function of males and females. this not only can be applied to humans but to other living things as well.

why can't we use our intelligence to study the causes of homosexual desires and behavior?
people have come up with scientific explanations for the simplest things. how come we can't do the same for homosexual desires and behavior

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson, 1802

QED

So here i sit and read all of this non sense about marriage is sacred... between a man and a woman... But how can you sit there and tell me that i don't love my wife like a man loves his wife and i don't deserve to have the same rights as everyone else? Why does it matter what sex somebody is? LOVE IS LOVE and leave it at that...

Whose business is it who marries who? Only the persons involved with that marriage that's who!!

So all you other self righteous controlling pro-claimed "Christian" individuals who think you need to control everybody else’s lives, shut the he11 up and mind your own business!

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

I am a Canadian and let me say that the issue is
far from settled here. The previous federal gov't
bowed to special interest groups in legalizing gay marriage.The current feds recognized the danger this would pose to churches,private universities etc. that refused to marry gays or to acknowledge gay marriages.Now those institutions and others need protection.We are already beginning to hear groups that want to legalize marriage between adults and children crying out for their "rights".We are also seeing gay rights groups threatening "human rights" action against ministers who refuse to marry them.To compare this issue to interracial marriage is ludicrous.Read the dissenting judges in California.The fact is an extremely small portion of the population should not have the right to overturn the fundamentals of a society.Protect the right to be gay, churches that want to perform such weddings ,even civil unions.But leave the definition of marriage alone.
And please -- no more milqetoast articles on the issue such as Claire Hoffman's.

By this rerdiculous argument, then we should also legalize polygamy, incest, and other perversions as long as it is private. Perversion even in a closet eventually ruins a society. It never stays in the closet. How many homosexuals have come out of the closet. Once out of the closet, there is no more right to privacy. The very act of coming out made it a public event. If the gays want to keep it private then why are they always pushing it in a public forum? Do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but don't rub my nose in your perversion, and then expect me to say, "Oh, isn't that nice and respectful." No one can be that blind, I hope, except the writer of this rediculous column.

Normal marriage:

Man+Woman --> Come the children
(Population increase)

"Special" marriage:
Man+Man or Woman+Woman ---> No Children
(Population deacrese): A DEATH Earth without people
_ So odd that Gay people was NOT a product of Gay nor a product of Abortion.
_Where are we going today. To a DEATH earth where there won't be any people left in this world, if we are all gay. (Not happy in a sence)

All of you who exclaim that Marriage is a Church/Religeous thing and the government should keep out of it have got it wrong!

Marriage dates back to when the church governed the people. Marriage was considered a binding legal document that was used for the purpose of legally assigning property and chattel (of which the wife was considered). A man who married a woman became the proud owner of said woman, and her property.

There was no love involved. There was very little God involved, except that God was considered the highest Ruling Authority (today's Supreme Court). You know...what God has put forth, let no man put assunder."

This was all for LEGAL purposes, NOT religeous purposes.

Americans. :-S

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION. TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD, JUDGE THE GAY AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING MORE THAN POISON YOUR SEED FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED. WHO ARE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PERFECT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED A SIN.

Marriage still discriminates against single people. It is still a discriminatory policy.

Whose business is it who marries who? Only the persons involved with that marriage that's who!!

So all you other self righteous controlling pro-claimed "Christian" individuals who think you need to control everybody else’s lives, shut the he11 up and mind your own business!

What a well-balanced and argued post! I am an agnostic and I completely agree.

"Federalist65:
Yes, you can cry civil rights, but gays are NOT a protected class. Protection is granted to classes that did not choose their class. There is currently no sound evidence saying that gays are born gay (despite what they claim), just as there is no evidence saying polygamists or those drawn to incest are born that way.

If we begin apportioning equal protection for classes that make choices to belong to the class, you'll have to accept polygamists and incest-drawn folks also."

I'm pretty sure that you cannot legally be discriminated against based on your religion. Last time I checked, I don't believe there was any sort of genetics to determine one's religion, so religion must be a choice, too. Want to try a different argument?

For those that think God is not real- your faith must be great(in man). I'm sorry you can believe in so many that have tried to disprove God and his laws because of the sin that clouds their vision- The homosexual lifestyle is one of these clouds. Rooted in the "BELIEF" of evolution and the nonexistence of God , they try to disprove God. -The sad thing is everyone wants freedom to sin but many want to take away the freedoms of the Church and what we believe in. (IE homeschooling and creation / God teaching). Fact is.. If you take God out of Public thought you destroy the foundation of what some people (Christians) live their life on. - Why do we have to live our life on the ever changing (MAN) views.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

I am confused why people on this post are comparing gay marriage to polygamy, marrying children, etc.

Marriage = TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That rules out marrying a minor, inanimate object, or just about any other ridiculous union people could come up with. It also rules out polygamy. Stop making these inane comparisons. Allowing a gay couple to get married is not going to lead to legalization of any of these things.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if the government started handing out ONLY civil unions for everyone (gay or straight), and let individual churches decide whether they want to marry a couple or not.

My wife and I were married 12 years 11 months ago by my mother who was deputized by the county for the day. Respect to everyone's belief but the only thing that God had to do with our ceremony was that it took place in a shallow pool under a waterfall on a beautiful day. The wonder of nature (God) created our amazing cathedral for the day but other than that... no mention of religion. Just lots of love and commitments.

The main reason folks are upset is because they don't understand homosexuality and its been deomonized for so long.

Personally I don't care because I don't want to sleep with anyone but my wife so its none of my business.

I don't understand the space shuttle either but I don't want all scientists to die!

Work on your own lives and stay out of ours!

Someone above had an interesting idea. Let the government issue unions. Let churches hold marriages. Government should be limited to the most skeletal regulations required for safety and rights. I've never understood why so many conservatives want a more invasive government that tells everyone how not to live or act. Unions are a contract between people. The government has a very valid place there. Marriage, or make up a different name, could be a religous contract between the people and their faith.

To T.C. and the author: It appears you have no guide lines in your life that may contain any value. T.C. who commented about going to a catholic church has chosen only portions of the bible to live her life by. Plain and simple, you are both morely wrong. Good luck at the gates of heaven!

Some of you have difficulty separating the concepts of personal preference and individual liberty. It should not and does not matter one iota to anyone else except YOU what you think your religion says about homosexuality. You are attempting to enforce a religious "law" that *you* choose to believe on the rest of the country. Constraining others' freedom based on your personal beliefs is about as close to the exact opposite of what it means to be American as you can get.

We will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Why should we continue to deceive ouselves?

Marriage still discriminates against single people. It is still a discriminatory policy.

To Hester:

"We should follow the French here. All marriages should be civil unions. You want to get married? you go to the courthouse and you get a civil union. Done. ..."

American's already have these same options as the French. You can go to the court to get married or have a religious ceremony.

To everyone else:

The hatred spewed across these comments is disgraceful and very ungodly. It is making me ill to read these comments by people who purport to be followers of a loving religion. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Homosexuals and their supporters, as well as alot of their opponents, are completely missing the point. Who cares who they want to have sex with or marry? If they have not received Jesus Christ as their personal savior and repent (turned away from) of all their sin (any violation of God's will found in His Word) they have a much bigger problem. In fact they might as well eat drink and be merry because judgment is coming. Not for any particular "bad" action but because of their rejection of God's love thru His perfect gift of His Son's blood shed on the cross. The USA was founded on the principle of freedom, for everyone. Freedom is different than obedience. In order to discuss this issue first there must be made a difference between these 2 ideas. Conservatives often make the mistake of thinking the government can legislate morality but even God does not "make" anyone do what is right. He just offers a choice and you suffer the consequences or gain the blessing from your choice.

Hey, straight people have to do it, why should gays and lesbians get away with anything?

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

I used to get upset coming to this site thinking that the country was even more filled with mindless intolerant cretins than I had feared. Now I recognize that it's just a minority of haters attracted day after day by the pious-sounding name - On Faith. Thank God.

Well said, Chris. And congratulations to all who are now able to make a legal bond of their love!

For all you people who claim to be followers of Christ (the ultimate embodiment of love) I say this: do unto others. In other words, leave these people alone! Stop pointing your fingers! The private relationships of other adults are none of your business. Their marriages are not going to hurt you or anyone else.

Think about how horrible it would be to be unable to create a legal bond with your husband or wife and to have a group of people tell you you're going to hell for loving this person.

Seriously people, I know what your book says about homosexuality. But homosexuality is merely a footnote. The Bible puts as much emphasis on the sin of eating of shellfish but that doesn't stop millions of Christians from lapping it up at the Red Lobster buffet, does it? Have you eaten shellfish yourself? Have you? SINNER! Go on, read your precious book again you hypocrites. It's in Leviticus. It's so annoying how you people pick and choose. You call for the blood of gays but you consistently violate myriad rules from the Old Testament yourselves, all the time. I can't decide which is more annoying, your self-righteousness or your hypocrisy. What's more, using your religious views to justify your interference in the personal, loving unions of other consenting adults is exceedingly un-American.

At any rate, this is a very happy day for those of us who cherish personal freedom from your religious persecution.

With much love from a straight woman married to a straight man who is happy to share this joyful state with our gay brothers and sisters.

The greatest problem our world has is the belief in one religion over another. No government should make a decision based on a religious belief. By basing a decision on one religion you are discrediting another. Keep your beliefs in your homes and in your religious institutions. If you think your God is going to send someone to hell for a sin then let God decide that, it's non of your business. There are so many conflicting beliefs under the same god, what makes yours right. What makes you Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. righteous over anyone else?

As far as I'm concerned I will die and become worm food. If by chance I find myself at the feet of a greater being be certain that I will meet "it" with a clear conscious which was not poisoned by someone else's storybook religion. If Jesus Christ was alive and preaching today we would all think he's nuts.

Excellent article. Let's end legal bigotry once and for all and get on with moving the world FORWARD!

IN reality this entire argument is nothing more than one group of sociopathic religious fanatics who feel they have the zealous right to control the lives of others; based solely on their perverted interpretation of the Holy Scripture. What is their next brilliant idea, who shoudl live or die based on how they yeild to their interpretation of the will of God? Sounds like another group of relifious fanatics the word is fighting, now doesn't it.

How is this for an argument, if God is so disgusted by the acts of humans, why did he allow his son to die for our sins? Or was it truly the fact that he allowed or even influenced his son for the commission of greater sins he committed himself?

Shocking you say?

Let's start with the raising of the dead; if memory serves this is a practice called Necromancing, a crime punishable by death in the Old Testament. From there was can move to other forms of witchery such as healing the sick by laying of hands, creating food and drink of thin air. Wow, if you look at it, Gods only begotten son, was a Witch.

So if these right wing zealots choose to comdemn people who want to lawfully live their lives in peace and love, maybe they should march down the street flogging themselves in attonement for the sins of thier own God and his son. Maybe they should focus on all the thousands of people who have died throughout history, in the name of God.

In all truth, they are nothing more than pathectic little people who are so wrapped in in their own form of self disgust and anguish that they have no choice but to focus on destroying the happiness of others.

Beign a gay man myself who has been in a relationship of 19 years I can honestly say that I am not angry at these people; I pitty them and their own sad little existance and I hurt for their children and those who have to endure the endless suffering of having to associate with them.

At least I know, that I am one person who can take the higher path of forgiveness and acceptance, happiness and love; something these poor people will truly never know.

I think the debate is confusing ideas and the issue. The government has provided a way for civil unions to give benefit to society, and marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony centered around the couples religious beliefs. They are not the same thing, although they do have a lot in common.

The government should have the right to change the rules of civil unions and how they apply. The government should not however, have the power to change religious beliefs and ceremonies. Hence the separation of church and state. It is the church's right to choose not to recognize gay marriage at the religious level, but it is not their right to legally deny it.

For christians, we have been misled that our religion is exactly like the one Christ came to replace. We are not a people bound by laws impossible to follow, but one given freedom through grace and love. We are not supposed to be spreading the hate of man, but the love of God. We claim our God offers us free redemption, but then we (the church, not God) put terms and conditions on that redemption.

We easily forget that we are just as fallen as everyone around us. Our sin is no different to anyone else's in the eyes of God. The only difference for us is that we have redemption through Christ, and a desire be obedient to God. That however does not make us perfect, always right, or even a good person, only a redeemed one.

As a christian, I apologize to those that have had others spit and curse you in my Savior's name. That is not what Christ intended, and I honestly believe that those that do that will fully reap the fruit of their choices.

Whose business is it who marries who? Only the persons involved with that marriage that's who!!

So all you other self righteous controlling pro-claimed "Christian" individuals who think you need to control everybody else’s lives, shut the he11 up and mind your own business!

The problem with the court's activist decision is that it mandates that govt issue a stamp of approval (e.g., a marraige license) upon a type of relationship which the vast majority of citizens do not believe should be granted special recognition or approval in the same way that a committed relationship between a man and woman should be recognized/approved by society. Committed gay couples in CA have the option of registering as a domestic partnership and in doing so will obtain the same economic benefits as a married heterosexual couple. Thus, there is no equal protection violation under CA law. Court's should not make moral judgments about which types of relationships will be affirmed/lauded by society. These sorts of judgments should be left to the people to make, not activist judges

I don't understand why straight people care about gay people getting married. If god doesn't want them to get married and be happy he will send them to hell. So let god deal with it instead of punishing them on what they believe god want. Because the truth is their is one god and he is the one that is all knowing not us.

All of you who exclaim that Marriage is a Church/Religeous thing and the government should keep out of it have got it wrong!

Marriage dates back to when the church governed the people. Marriage was considered a binding legal document that was used for the purpose of legally assigning property and chattel (of which the wife was considered). A man who married a woman became the proud owner of said woman, and her property.

There was no love involved. There was very little God involved, except that God was considered the highest Ruling Authority (today's Supreme Court). You know...what God has put forth, let no man put assunder."

This was all for LEGAL purposes, NOT religeous purposes.

This is too much. No comments. Americans. :-S

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

To T.C. and the author: It appears you have no guide lines in your life that may contain any value. T.C. who commented about going to a catholic church has chosen only portions of the bible to live her life by. Plain and simple, you are both morely wrong. Good luck at the gates of heaven!

Homosexuality = a Sin

Too bad you can't get around that Reality.

"Judge not and you will not be judged, for the measure in which you judge others, so shall you be judged."

If only more people lived by this phrase Jesus taught, the world would be a much better place.

Why seeking for excuses in Religious persecution and trying to portray gay as a rightful victim? Not only the Bible detests it, there are many other religions detest same sex inter-cross.

First, same sex union is anti-nature. It does not preserve human nature which has been developed for some of thousand of years. There are very well reasons for our fore-fathers and fore-mothers through out these thousands of years detest same sex inter-cross.

Now, because of the Bill of Rights, people started to exploit the possibility to abuse their rights and breaking the wellness of nature and civil engagement.

Gay can be described as a psychological illness. And it is just like normal illness and can be rectified. However, instead of helping the twisted mind people back to the right track, you people started a riot because of shames inside you couldn't bare and you refuse to admit your mental illness. And now you demand for a legal letter to shut up the voice of those who bares rightful mind against the destructive acts toward human nature.

And it is out of your desperation of putting a new cloth to cover the factual shame with the word democratic, so you yourself can feel better?

Even it gets acceptant in legal responsibility, the shame inside is still remain because your cloth only covers outer shell leaving the inner spoils unfixed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, come to your sense and effort yourself to preserve the order of the nature for humanity.

I strongly urge voters not to vote for any politicians who supports same sex marriage with any excuses based on the abuse of the Bill of Right, which is not intended to be written for this purpose. Any politician seeks fame over destructive acts of human race and corruption of their local residents should not be put into the office to serve the community.

I apologize if you found offensive over my words. May I here ask for your understanding and forgiveness over my language and manner for saying what I concerned deeply for our children and the wellness of the children to come.

These discussions indicate there is too much separation in viewpoints to find common ground. I suggest it is time for California and Massachusetts to leave the Union - along with any other states who choose to do so.

Go with our blessings - quickly.

MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE A SACRED EVENT BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BECAUSE MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE LIFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD FROWN UPON, RATHER THAN LET EVERY PERSON BE CONSCIOUS OF THE DECISION THEY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES. NO SIN IS GREATER THAN ANOTHER. A UNION IS A VOW BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. IF THEY AGREE TO IT WHO ARE WE TO OPPOSE THEIR UNION. TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD, JUDGE THE GAY AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING MORE THAN POISON YOUR SEED FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED. WHO ARE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PERFECT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED A SIN.

Should we allow marriage between a man and his mother? What about a father and his daughter? 16 year old girls pay taxes, so why not allow them to marry 50 year old men without parental consent?

The fact is, there are some unnatural relationships out there.

All of you who exclaim that Marriage is a Church/Religious thing and the government should keep out of it have got it wrong!

Marriage dates back to when the church governed the people. Marriage was considered a binding legal document that was used for the purpose of legally assigning property and chattel (of which the wife was considered). A man who married a woman became the proud owner of said woman, and her property.

There was no love involved. There was very little God involved, except that God was considered the highest Ruling Authority (today's Supreme Court). You know...what God has put forth, let no man put assunder."

This was all for LEGAL purposes, NOT religious purposes.

These discussions indicate there is too much separation in viewpoints to find common ground. I suggest it is time for California and Massachusetts to leave the Union - along with any other states who choose to do so.

Go with our blessings - quickly.

Reading through the decision I couldn’t help but think that this is a sad outcome for all couples. Not because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married in the first place. Granted striking down the notion of marriage wasn’t before the court and it was not in their power to do, but it is something we should all consider. The legal institution of marriage has been dying on the vine for years and a better outcome for all couples would have been to squeeze them under the heading of domestic registry and eliminate the very notion of marriage in the first place.

The full text of my article should be up in a few hours at www.futureosophy.com

It is based on religious beliefs that many of our laws have been founded. So if we take religion out of government completely, can people then murder, steal and commit other crimes and just be accepted as normal? No, they are considered antisocial people. Just because homosexuals break marriage laws or don't fit into a category for tax breaks doesn't mean the laws should change to fit their lifestyle. And no, homosexuals are not comitting crimes against others like a murderer does, but they are trying to make an antisocial behavior accepted. And if we allow homosexuality we should NOT allow them to adopt or go to sperm banks. If their "love" is so "natural" and how God intended it to be then figure out how to reproduce naturally as well together. Oops, that can't happen!

"The legalization of gay marriage cheapens the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, an institution that is a fundamental building block of a healthy society"

So, unmarried people are unhealthy? Single individuals, for whatever reason they are single, are damaging to our society? Heterosexual couples obviously are the prime example of what marriage should be. Drive through wedding chapels next to divorce lawyers are healthy.

"In addition, the legalization of gay marriage will no doubt lead to greater acceptance of adoption by homosexual couples--something that I feel is very unfair to the children involved, because they need a mother and a father."

Single mothers or single fathers or widows are unfit parents now? I thought that raising a child was about love and guidance, not the perfect balance of male and female.

The California Supremes have done fo McCain what the US Supremes in 2000 did for Bush! Judicial activism is again an issue and it will sink the Democrats.

How did this happen before the decriminalization of marijuana? I can't stand party politics.

Something to bear in mind: There is a growing segment of the American public that really doesn't give two figs for the contents of the Christian Bible, a document with an editorial history mired in the political agenda of factions and individuals guilty of horrifying atrocities. Practice whatever faith you like; my opinion shouldn't hinder you. But when you come out saying that *ANYONE* else should conform to your beliefs, that's when I stand up and stand behind the target of your vitriol, whether I espouse their belief system or no.

To the stance that "Marriage" is between a man and a woman and everyone else can have "Civil Union" with identical legal rights and privilege: "Separate But Equal" much?

The arguments raised against same-sex marriage today are nearly identical to those raised against mixed-race marriage 40 years ago. 40 years from now, opponents of same-sex marriage will sound just as bigoted as opponents of mixed-race marriage do today.

I don't understand why straight people care about gay people getting married. If god doesn't want them to get married and be happy he will send them to hell. So let god deal with it instead of punishing them on what they believe god want. Because the truth is their is one god and he is the one that is all knowing not us.

Frankly I think the news that Portia de Rossi and Ellen Degeneres are getting married (the corollory news-story-of-the-day to the announcement that California will uphold gay marriage) is great.

A lot of attention has been paid to promoting male homosexuality as normal, but the female equivalent is still, I suspect misunderstood, Mariel Hemingway and Rosanne (or was that Woody Allen ) notwithstanding (yes Madonna, it had been done --- OOOh, get you! mieow (etc.)) and associated either with soft-porn fantasies or crewcuts, square body frames, bov-ver boots (read Doc Martens) and lumberjack shirts ("and I'm okay" ).

Seeing two very normal looking women in such a high profile relationship can only be good for the normalization of being gay and female.

David,

Neither gay nor lesbian, just live-and-let-live-and-be-nice-to-others-please

Canada

aka "The Adsense Strategist"

http://adsensestrategiesadsense.wordpress.com/

Marriage is a legal status granted by government. Doesn't matter whether you approve of gays or what your religion is. No one is asking a religion to marry gay people. Believe what you will. Approve or disapprove of people's lifestyles or beliefs. That is everyone's right. But it isn't anyone's right to force their beliefs on the rest of us. At least not anymore. In California.

"And by the same token, I think people who believe that homosexuality is against God should be respected for their beliefs."

I disagree. That is a disrespectful notion and an unrespectable one. Tolerate it, yes. Respect it, no.

It's disrespectful to people who are homosexual, through no choice of their own. It's disrespectful to the notion of Deity because it takes a human opinion and ascribes it to God. Humans who claim to speak for God are disrespectful to the concept of God. If God exists and so wishes, God may speak for Him/HerSelf.

I am sad that the national debate doesn't even focus on why the state is granting 'marriages'. Traditionally 'marriage' had nothing to do with the state and was considered a personal and/or religious commitment, whose circumstances and reasons varied across faiths and cultures. The idea that being married has anything to do with the state is a fallacy. The state should be granting everybody, gay or straight, a civil union, for legal purposes, and churches should be marrying people. I think it's sad that we don't even discuss this in America.

I used to get upset coming to this site thinking that the country was even more filled with mindless intolerant cretins than I had feared. Now I recognize that it's just a minority of haters attracted day after day by the pious-sounding name - On Faith. Thank God.

I hope what I say may not cause offense, but I know I can always say things incorrectly. Those of us that are Christians are to always love one another and our neighbors regardless of orientation. Also, we must never forget to always hope and pray for all. Though the standards and laws that we make often differ from the standards of God's law, He does not obligate nor encourage us to fulfill all of our desires. He wants us to control those desires that violate his laws. We are all beautifully made in His image, and we need to continue to take care of ourselves without causing sinful hurt.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

Why don't we just as Mexico and other countries do, and have two parallel paths for marriage - 1 recognized by the state / federal gov't to legalize benefits and taxes and all that, with a second track that takes place within the church? Seems to solve all of the issues to me. Then the church can ban anyone they want, keep marriage "sacred" and all that crap. And people will get their equal protection under the law.

How did this happen before the decriminalization of marijuana? Even Jesus would have been cool with that.

Wow, bigotry much? It never ceases to amaze me how rudeness and intolerance are considered virtues in America. When did stepping on the rights of others become fun; or even desirable?

I happen to be straight, but I don't care who wants to sex who. I really don't. As long as my right to marry/sex whom I chose is protected I see no reason everyone shouldn't be able to use the institution. I agree church's shouldn't be forced to accept anything they don't want, but we aren't talking about church, we're talking about the government. The one everyone, including gays, pay taxes to.

The thing that drives me most crazy is the illiterate, historically inaccurate, crazy arguments religious people put forward. Freeing the black people was going to cause the collapse of society. Then inner-racial marriage. Women voting. The list goes on and on. Every single social progression that we enjoy today was resisted by the same idiots fighting gay marriage.

*HINT*
You guys lots the last 5,000 battles and you will lose this one too. The only difference is the rest of us will become that much more disenfranchised with the whole silly religious thing.

Imagine a crazy world where we dealt with the business of governing and running a country in government, and not controlling what everyone does of ever second of every day?

Why can't these homosexual unions be given a different name, but afforded the same benefits and penalties as a heterosexual marriage would have? That way, it doesn't infringe on religious or traditional definition of marriage, and is "equal" in the eyes of the law. After all, if a black and a white person have the same rights under the law, even though they have different ethnicity (i.e. name of race), why can a union and a marriage have the same rights?

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The last time I checked, Freedom of Religion means ANY religion.

Marriage should equal two consenting adults. What two, loving and consenting people do in the privacy of their own home is no one's business.

Faith and religion is a PRIVATE matter, between oneself and their god/goddess/diety. It is not for you to dictate, and more importantly, it is not for you to decide "who burns in hell" and who doesn't.

It's YOUR hell...YOU burn in it!

"God, Please save me from all your "good" people"

And it harm none, do as thou wilt.

Blessed be!

How did this happen before the decriminalization of marijuana? Both Jesus AND homosexuals would have been cool with that.

I used to get upset coming to this site thinking that the country was even more filled with mindless intolerant cretins than I had feared. Now I recognize that it's just a minority of haters attracted day after day by the pious-sounding name - On Faith. Thank God.

What does this mean to social security and survivor benefits?

Wow, bigotry much? It never ceases to amaze me how rudeness and intolerance are considered virtues in America. When did stepping on the rights of others become fun; or even desirable?

I happen to be straight, but I don't care who wants to sex who. I really don't. As long as my right to marry/sex whom I chose is protected I see no reason everyone shouldn't be able to use the institution. I agree church's shouldn't be forced to accept anything they don't want, but we aren't talking about church, we're talking about the government. The one everyone, including gays, pay taxes to.

The thing that drives me most crazy is the illiterate, historically inaccurate, crazy arguments religious people put forward. Freeing the black people was going to cause the collapse of society. Then inner-racial marriage. Women voting. The list goes on and on. Every single social progression that we enjoy today was resisted by the same idiots fighting gay marriage.

*HINT*
You guys lots the last 5,000 battles and you will lose this one too. The only difference is the rest of us will become that much more disenfranchised with the whole silly religious thing.

Imagine a crazy world where we dealt with the business of governing and running a country in government, and not controlling what everyone does of ever second of every day?

The same people against gay marriage are the same people who have used their religions to mame, kill, opress, and enslave people for milenia. Right, wrong, good, evil, Look in the mirror. Is it easy being gay? Not in this society. I am very happy with my sexuality, but if I could have chosen, I may choosen straight, just to get these right winger nutjobs off my back.

what if all these court rulings were struck down? And marriage was defined between a man and a women. Would all gay families just go away. Of course not. Because you cannot legislate the love or sexuality between two people and their children. If the right wing gets their way however, they will make the lives of children everywhere more difficult to live.

We are not going away. To be cliche, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"

It's really very simple... in His commandments, God does not define 'appropriate' relationships. He says a lot of relevant things, including honoring your elders (parents), loving your neighbors, and not killing people. Apparently sodomy wasn't a big enough deal to make it unforgiveable. It's the Old Testament equivalent of jaywalking. In the New Testament it's basically ignored. Except for the letters of Paul, and he's something else entirely.

Our founding fathers, in turn, did not include a definition of 'marriage' in the Constitution. Why? Because that wasn't their goal. They were attempting to establish a fair and just society based on democratic ideals. That requires allowing civil liberties. Not limiting them. Most examples of limitations on civil liberties that existed during that time (slavery, women's suffrage, etc) have long since been abolished or are well on their way to being reversed. Why would we want to limit the rights of gays. They should absolutely be able to create legally and morally binding unions in order to establish their own households and families. That is part of God's plan, like it or not.

One set of ideals does not contradict the other. I'm a Christian. That means I follow the example of Jesus. Which means I do not judge. God bless us, everyone.

When you get down to it its pretty simple. without a man and a women union there can be no children, without children mankind is finished. Yes I know there are other ways, but the children of gay parents can never be biologically tied to both parents, which seems strange. I may be old fashioned but I look at the animal kingdome from which we suposidly came from and see how they continue the survival of their species.

Religion has no place in legislation. Neither does racism. I am a white heterosexual man. Way to go California!!

The rest of you bigots should go join a holy war, get killed, and stop posting your ignorant hate speech all over the net. This is how young minds get corrupted. Why don't you just go to church and sing, or something?

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The last time I checked, Freedom of Religion means ANY religion.

Marriage should equal two consenting adults. What two, loving and consenting people do in the privacy of their own home is no one's business.

Faith and religion is a PRIVATE matter, between oneself and their god/goddess/diety. It is not for you to dictate, and more importantly, it is not for you to decide "who burns in hell" and who doesn't.

It's YOUR hell...YOU burn in it!

"God, Please save me from all your "good" people"

And it harm none, do as thou wilt.

Blessed be!

I don't have anything against gays (have a couple of friends that are), but a marraige needs to remain between a woman and man. The fact that you cannot physically have the entire experience of having a child together as a gay, married couple (as opposed to adoption) means that there is still a little less than a full experience on a family. Don't get me wrong, good parents are good parent, no matter what combination they come in, but bearing a child that was placed there by your partner is an experience that adds to the love experienced between that couple (that statement of couse excludes the time period that the woman is giving birth, i'm sure she hates her man at that point). Also, there's strong evidence supporting that gays are usually those that have had a traumatizing past to some degree. Put those two together to raise a child, and the probability of not raising one correcly increases (I'm simply stating common sense). The "American family" in this country needs to be retained and we need to stop going in a direction that pleases everyone. Look around, pleasing everyone is leading us down a dark and dreary road alrady. This just adds to it.

If this has nothing to do with religion, why fight to have the union be called 'marriage' when there was already a legal union in place for gay couples that contained all rights and benefits of marriage? They already had all rights and benefits, they just wanted the name changed.

However, you can't write "kosher" on a piece of bacon and make it so, and neither can a union between two same sex adults be called "marriage" just by wishing it so.

Homosexuals are not being denied rights. They are free to marry as heteros, and heteros are under the same restrictions as they are.

The rights pertaining to marriage come from two sources, the government and the religion of the people involved in the marriage.

All this changes is the first one. Now two people who make a public declaration before the government to stay together and share housing and, potentially, child rearing duties will have identical rights to health insurance, next of kin status, and other legalities that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

This has nothing to do with religion. No religion is required to permit gay marriage. That's what the separation of church and state is for.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

Since God condemns homosexuality, then we have to believe that a man or a woman with homosexual feelings is expected to behave like any other human being and follows God's laws if he/she truely believes in them. He/she shall resist his/her feelings , maintains abstinence , use all available resources of help including medical, social and behavioral therapies to overcome their behavior and feelings. They should pray to God to help them getting over it and submit to God's law that sees homosexuality as gross sin. Only those who steadfastly persevere in obeying God's law will they pass their test and confirm their submission to God.

I used to get upset coming to this site thinking that the country was even more filled with mindless intolerant cretins than I had feared. Now I recognize that it's just a minority of haters attracted day after day by the pious-sounding name - On Faith. Thank God.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada, and the sky isn't falling. As well, no religious group is required to perform a same-sex ceremony in Canada.

Just look at the high rates of divorce, adultery and family abandonment in traditional marriage, and then tell me how sacred traditional marriage really is.

What people aren't getting is that marriage is a religious thing, the Sacrament of Matrimony, and it has been wrongly entangled in our legal/political system. We have the marital contract, yet we refer to it as "marriage."

We are effectively calling our civil unions "marriage," and that needs to stop. Give civil unions to everyone, unless there's a valid reason gays shouldn't raise kids, and let those who want to be married go to their local church.

And no, you can't point to ancient Egyptian unions and call them 'marriage' and say that the idea is not a Judeo-Christian one. Unless _they_ called it marriage and _we_ took the word from _them_, we're talking about two different things.

-- www.danielbridges.info

I don't have anything against gays (have a couple of friends that are), but a marraige needs to remain between a woman and man. The fact that you cannot physically have the entire experience of having a child together as a gay, married couple (as opposed to adoption) means that there is still a little less than a full experience on a family. Don't get me wrong, good parents are good parent, no matter what combination they come in, but bearing a child that was placed there by your partner is an experience that adds to the love experienced between that couple (that statement of couse excludes the time period that the woman is giving birth, i'm sure she hates her man at that point). Also, there's strong evidence supporting that gays are usually those that have had a traumatizing past to some degree. Put those two together to raise a child, and the probability of not raising one correcly increases (I'm simply stating common sense). The "American family" in this country needs to be retained and we need to stop going in a direction that pleases everyone. Look around, pleasing everyone is leading us down a dark and dreary road alrady. This just adds to it.

For the government(s), this boils down not to a religious issue at all, but one of finances. Imagine if a gay man who died in combat's widower at home was entitled to his benefits. We can't have that - that could cost some money.

Anything for the government always boils down to budget. They want our taxes, and they want to give as little back as possible, while spending the most on themselves and their constituents and pet projects.

If gays, lesbians, etc. had said from the start that they just wanted to be able to check "married" on forms and get public recognition for their unions, but that they didn't expect any of the financial benefits of marriage or to be able to file joint income taxes, this would have been a non-issue.

Our government is as godless as they come. Any politicians who evoke God's word typically do so only to get more votes or to get more money.

Even so come now LORD JESUS!!!

If two people who love each other can marry regardless of gender, why not three?

Give me privacy to love and worship as my heart feels compelled to do. (I am a heterosexual American, a descendant of those who arrived on the Mayflower in 1620.)
Marriage is a personal and private right. If bestiality (a severe digression), is the only argument against gay marriage – then homophobes need to wake up!
Many religious leaders support same-gender marriage. Over 1,000 clergy or equivalent religious leaders have signed the "Massachusetts Declaration of Religious Support for the Freedom of Same Gender Couples To Marry." These 1,000 religious leaders represent many different religions and denominations from Baptists to Buddhists, Hindus to Episcopalians (including the Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts), Presbyterians, Jews, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, and many others. Even one or two Catholic clergy have signed the declaration, and others support it quietly.
Most (if not all) Unitarian universal congregations are family-friendly religious communities that welcome people from whatever heritage of faith. Look for a UU Welcoming Congregation, intentionally extending a hand to the GLBT community.

Perhaps when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage....

From a Gallup Poll dated May 8 - 11 2008

Question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Results: 40% - Should, 56% - Shouldn't, 4% - Unsure

And when you make statements like:

"Our founding fathers bestowed a right to individuality and equality through our amazing constitution."

When our founding fathers made it quite clear that they were not bestowing the right of equality, but that God had created all men equal...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Then it becomes easy to accept the idea that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Actually means that people should not have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Instead we are passing laws that inevitably will lead to my children being disciplined in a state school for not being accepting of Johnny's parents Adam and Steve.

Most importantly... If we believe that God doesn't affect a persons rights.... Then how could he have created them?

" Gene B:

Homosexuality has always been viewed by believing Christians as a sin, just as sex before marriage."

This is a great point. People who commit sex before marriage are still allowed to get married; why are homosexuals?

Gay marriage is an ABOMINATION! Homosexuals must confine themselves to random hook-ups! God bless Larry Craig and his WIDE STANCE! God bless the EXCLAMATION POINT!!!11!!one!

Seriously, isn't sitting around worrying about God all day pretty gay to begin with?

The rights pertaining to marriage come from two sources, the government and the religion of the people involved in the marriage.

All this changes is the first one. Now two people who make a public declaration before the government to stay together and share housing and, potentially, child rearing duties will have identical rights to health insurance, next of kin status, and other legalities that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

This has nothing to do with religion. No religion is required to permit gay marriage. That's what the separation of church and state is for.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

All of you who exclaim that Marriage is a Church/Religious thing and the government should keep out of it have got it wrong!

Marriage dates back to when the church governed the people. Marriage was considered a binding legal document that was used for the purpose of legally assigning property and chattel (of which the wife was considered). A man who married a woman became the proud owner of said woman, and her property.

There was no love involved. There was very little God involved, except that God was considered the highest Ruling Authority (today's Supreme Court). You know...what God has put forth, let no man put assunder."

This was all for LEGAL purposes, NOT religious purposes.

Fear was not incited in 2004, people were just fed up with the pop culture approval of what is perverse. PRivacy is about protectig what happens in one's own home, but homosexuality is everywhere, normalized through the media, sancitifed by cable and movies. The old line "Is Nothing Sacred?" is still posed by many who value traditional beliefs. There are some things that should be protected from corruption, some cearly defined roles and rules, Like "It depends on what the definition of 'IS'is". There is nothing certain in our soceity, not solid. This demonstrates not a flexible society but on ein quicksand. We need stanards, marriage is a standard. Perhaps if the Gay community had leaders and was organized to promote long term relationships instead of nameless Sex, if the Gay community would have a harsher definitons than the rest of soceity as to what Child molestation is, perhaps if the Gay community accepted other religious beleifs without out the 'IN YOUR FACE'attitude, then it would be easier to accept Gay marriage, but unforutately the desire for Gay marriage is a desire for full acceptance into a community who other standards they do not want to accept, which makes it a complete falsehood.

It would seem that the debates of "God's Law" include the concerns of a large portion of the people and there by removing it from debates would be to make a politition short-sighted. I thought an "open mind" was a good thing? Hmmm... Personal Agenda weaved into blogs and disguised as a neutral statement.

Being a minister myself who does find homosexuality a sin, I would like to offer this solution to the whole problem:

Remove the concept of marriage from the legal realm! Why does the government need to define any kind of committed relationship? Do we file with it what church we go to? Do we file it what friends we choose to keep? Do we tell it who our roommate will be and whether or not that roommate is acceptable? No! So why should the government be interested in this thing called "marriage."

Look, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, but that same Bible also says specifically in 1 Corinthians 5:12 that Christians are NOT to judge those who are not Christian (we are supposed to judge those who ARE Christians, by the way). I call on all my Christian brothers to stop judging those who do not want to follow the teachings of the Apostles as if they did! It makes no sense!

The government's desire to determine who is and is not married is the problem. I am against polygamy too, but how is it that the government is against a man with two wives and not against a man who has children by three different women, all of whom are not legally, but in all practiciality his wives?

I beg us to stop the argument and simply ask the government to step out.

Just thought everyone here might like to see how the Bible condemns homosexuality. The author of this (in my opinion, bad) article, only vaguely references the old testament and almost seems to be trying to mis-lead people into believing that Adam and Eve is the reason real Christians condemn homosexuality. Here are many clear passages from the old and new testament that condemn homosexuality. Now, if someone says the Bible does not condemn homosexuality you can call them a liar. In the Bible there are also MANY references to God unleashing his wrath on un-holy nations.

Ok here are the verses:

Narrative references to homosexual behavior
Sodom...
Genesis 19:4-11

homosexual rape..
Judges 19

Lev. 20:13... Here is a passage you cant argue with:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New testament
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:8-11
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

In the end I leave God to judge but I do believe in maintaining a Godly nation with Godly morals and laws.

Oh good, now we're using the bible to justify our selfish need for exclusion to validate our own existence. That's a great development for me personally because I've been looking for justification to murder people who speak unfavorably of me. Fortunately in 2 Kings 2:20 a group of kids made fun of Elijah for being bald, and through God he commanded some bears to maul every last one of them. Finally I have precedent, and from the bible no less! Infallibility is a beautiful thing.

P.S. Anyone wishing to comment unfavorably about this post should include his or her home address.

Doesn't anyone want to actually comment on the article itself? I thought it was well put, and really took into account the two sides, such a rare thing in journalism today, and the conflict of being caught in the middle.

All the religious quotes are irrelevent, so I don't see why people keep bringing them up. As for "Why can't these homosexual unions be given a different name, but afforded the same benefits and penalties as a heterosexual marriage would have?" Well, seperate but equal has never really worked.

The United States was established under a constitution for "individuality and equality", but also under the principals of the bible. If you don't want to take my word for it, do some unbiased research and see for yourself. George Washington did not want the values and principals of the bible to be separated from the government of the United States. Again, if you don't believe me, find out for yourself. I believe that if 2 people choice to be involved in a gay relationship, then that is their choice, but I do not believe that the United States government should be allowing them to marry. It is not against the United States constitution to prohibit gays from marrying. It is, however, against the constitution to forbid them from choosing to be gay. Marriage under the United States constitution is between a man and a woman, period, look it up.

If you allow gays to marry, you would also have to consider allowing people to do other things which are unconstitutional, such as marrying children or marrying animals, there are people out there that want to do that. Do they not also have rights? Do you see what I mean. You have to draw the line somewhere. And the line was already drawn when the United States was founded, shame on today's government for changing it.

I realize that some people may find these comments offensive, but wouldn't it be unconstitutional to sensor it or to not post it on this site?

Perhaps when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage....

From a Gallup Poll dated May 8 - 11 2008

Question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Results: 40% - Should, 56% - Shouldn't, 4% - Unsure

And when you make statements like:

"Our founding fathers bestowed a right to individuality and equality through our amazing constitution."

When our founding fathers made it quite clear that they were not bestowing the right of equality, but that God had created all men equal...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Then it becomes easy to accept the idea that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Actually means that people should not have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Instead we are passing laws that inevitably will lead to my children being disciplined in a state school for not being accepting of Johnny's parents Adam and Steve.

Most importantly... If we believe that God doesn't affect a persons rights.... Then how could he have created them?

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

When you get down to it its pretty simple. without a man and a women union there can be no children, without children mankind is finished. Yes I know there are other ways, but the children of gay parents can never be biologically tied to both parents, which seems strange. I may be old fashioned but I look at the animal kingdome from which we suposidly came from and see how they continue the survival of their species.

It would seem that the debates of "God's Law" include the concerns of a large portion of the people and there by removing it from debates would be to make a politition short-sighted. I thought an "open mind" was a good thing? Hmmm... Personal Agenda weaved into blogs and disguised as a neutral statement.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...

Isn't this getting a bit old? Gay marriage has happened in many other countries and the world hasn't opened and swallowed them up!

Get over it and mind your own business if you don't like it!

You can discuss and change man's laws all you want. But the bottom line is God's laws don't change, and he is the only one that sanctions marriage.

HOW COME YOU SAY IN AMERICA THAT YOU ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD, HOWEVER YOU TRY TO TAKE GOD OUT OF ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN. HOW COULD THIS COUNTRY HAVE STRAYED SO FAR FROM GOD AND FROM THE JEWDEAO CHRISTIAN FAITH THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON? HOW FAR MUST THIS GREAT COUNTRY SINK BEOFRE WE ALL REALIZE HOW MUCH GOD LOVES US AND HOW WE HAVE BECOME NOTHING MORE THAN HEATHENS, DISOBAYING EVRY COMANDMENT AND WORD THAT GOD HAS ASKED FROM US. IS IT THAT HARD TO OBEY THE CREATOR OF ALL LIFE, INCLUDING YOURS. WE NEED TO REPENT AS A COUNTRY AND PRAY FOR GOD TO PUT US RIGHT AND TO PUT THE RIGHT MAN IN OFFICE TO DIRECT THIS COUNTRY BACK TO ITS GLORY.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Religion has no place in legislation. Neither does racism. I am a white heterosexual man. Way to go California!!

The rest of you bigots should go join a holy war, get killed, and stop posting your ignorant hate speech all over the net. This is how young minds get corrupted. Why don't you just go to church and sing, or something?

Being a minister myself who does find homosexuality a sin, I would like to offer this solution to the whole problem:

Remove the concept of marriage from the legal realm! Why does the government need to define any kind of committed relationship? Do we file with it what church we go to? Do we file it what friends we choose to keep? Do we tell it who our roommate will be and whether or not that roommate is acceptable? No! So why should the government be interested in this thing called "marriage."

Look, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, but that same Bible also says specifically in 1 Corinthians 5:12 that Christians are NOT to judge those who are not Christian (we are supposed to judge those who ARE Christians, by the way). I call on all my Christian brothers to stop judging those who do not want to follow the teachings of the Apostles as if they did! It makes no sense!

The government's desire to determine who is and is not married is the problem. I am against polygamy too, but how is it that the government is against a man with two wives and not against a man who has children by three different women, all of whom are not legally, but in all practiciality his wives?

I beg us to stop the argument and simply ask the government to step out.

Michael said:

"When you get down to it its pretty simple. without a man and a women union there can be no children, without children mankind is finished. Yes I know there are other ways, but the children of gay parents can never be biologically tied to both parents, which seems strange. I may be old fashioned but I look at the animal kingdome from which we suposidly came from and see how they continue the survival of their species."

With a human population that increases at over 200,000 people per day, are we in any danger of extinction?

For everyone throwing religion around, I refer you to the 1st Amendment. For all those who do not grasp the concept of a Democratic Republic, there is a reason why, on occasion, the rulings of judges are what take place instead of a vote. It is to prevent MOB rule, that if there are 99 people who think one way and 1 person who thinks another, that 1 person’s rights are protected, under our Constitution. It’s called Equal Protection under the Law. Please see the 14th Amendment: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It means if you don’t like gay marriage, that’s just fine. But you don’t have a right to stop it. In the end, it has no effect on your life, why do you care??? Of all the things going on in the world right now, don’t you have something more important to be worried about? The Bill of Rights stands above all of our personal beliefs and encompasses them at the same time. This is America, it’s called freedom, it’s picking your own life and not having the right to decide someone else’s. Is it actually hurting you or your life? No, it’s not. Get over it.
Signed -- Straight, Southern Born and Bred White Girl Sick of This Gay Bashing Foolishness

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...

I am a conservative Christian and I am all for gay marriage, just not in the church.
Mans relationship to God is between that man and God. The individual is the one that must stand before him in the judgment and answer for his or her own actions. This will not be a judgment by peers and it should not be that way here either.
If two people choose to enter a legal contract with one another and receive the benefits of such contract, then so be it. They are also subject to that contract being dissolved and the repercussions of such.
The Christians responsibility in all this is to lead by example. We do not have the right to force our morals on others, that type of leadership has never been successful in any situation.
So for the Christians reading this, take heart that they can’t procreate and leave’em alone.

Oh good, now we're using the bible to justify our selfish need for exclusion to validate our own existence. That's a great development for me personally because I've been looking for justification to murder people who speak unfavorably of me. Fortunately in 2 Kings 2:20 a group of kids made fun of Elijah for being bald, and through God he commanded some bears to maul every last one of them. Finally I have precedent, and from the bible no less! Infallibility is a beautiful thing.

P.S. Anyone wishing to comment unfavorably about this post should include his or her home address.

You know what really ticks me off? How is it that it is ok to take away my rights as a christian, and steal my voice, but it is not ok for me to say anything in defense of my faith. You claim your rights are being violated? it seems now - a - days every time I turn around my rights as a christian are being imfringed upon.

Tell you what when you start giving me the right to an opinion, I will be more then happy to give you yours.

I will never understand these debates. Does it really come down to semantics? Would everything really be ok if we just called legal marriages "civil unions?" Are we really so brain-dead that we can't accept that that's what they already are? There is a huge difference between a "legal marriage" and a "religious marriage" (hint: one is granted by the state while the other is overseen by a church)

Nobody --- Nobody is forcing any religion to change its stance. Nobody is telling anyone that they have to agree with homosexuality. What people are saying is that we should all have equal rights under the law. And allowing gay marriage is a big step towards this aim. And its benefits are far reaching. It doesn't just help those who actually get married, but it helps build a more financially robust populace. Face it, most marriages have a large economic component, and these will be no different. It will make it easier for people to find health insurance, to weather downturns in the economy or even the loss of a job more easily, to make joint purchases, and to play a larger legal role in the lives of their loved one (ie, helping with medical decisions or even having access to their loved one when seriously ill).

What's more, I find the "it's a sin" argument utterly ridiculous. Sure, many faiths assert such teachings --- and no law will change that --- but they also propose that being of any other faith is a sin (among countless other things). In fact, no idea is as central to most religions as "do you believe?" Does that mean we should dissolve freedom or religion? And what standard do we apply, Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist....

I would like to finish with a plea to all of those who are bringing their religion in to this. Stop. Please. I beg you. Continue to worship as you have always done, and to allow others to believe, worship, and live as they see fit. This issue has nothing to do with religion. It will not effect your church or its proceedings. So, please stop clouding the issue and allow for a real legal dialogue.

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 worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever 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.

So where do we draw the line?

Should someone who is Bi be allowed to have both a Husband and a wife? Two wives? Two husbands? A whole group? It is all supposed to be about choice, and freedom thereof. That is the argument for Gay Marriage. What about that plantation in Texas that just got raided, is that OK in California? That has a better Constitutional argument under Freedom of Religion than this nonsense has.

The more important thing is here we have a State Law that was voted on by a 60% majority in the State of California, get overturned by 4 judges. Judges are not supposed to write laws, yet that is what these 4 judges are doing, in defiance of the will of the people. That is a major problem.

I am 25 years old. Chances are, MOST of you writing are significantly older than that (or will just lie to that effect.) You are pathetically set in your ways and seem to forget that this is NOT an issue of religion. This is an issue of a LEGAL standpoint. You may remember that the Constitution is a living document. Able to be changed with the times. Gays and Lesbians have been forced for centuries to deny themselves the ability to be with a person that they love and want to spend their lives with because of people like yourselves that I have read nothing but filth from. I am not trying to change your minds, because that will never happen. You will always be ignorant to the times of today. I am writing simply to tell you that I feel sorry for you. You will never know what it is like to live hate free. You will never understand that the youth of today HATES you for the way you speak of our friends and family. You will never understand that regardless of the fact that I am a bisexual female, I know I will be meeting God in heaven when this life is over. And you can bet a million bucks that when I get there, I will be laughing in every single one of your faces. While I kiss your daughter.

Our rights are guaranteed by the constitution, not the bible. Please read up on why this country was founded. It is a fascinating story which seems to elude many."With liberty and justice for all" is such a pesky concept for some.

Why are people so afraid of equal rights

religious types get all worked up over nothing and offer no logical arguments against gay marriage

this is a very good article and im impressed with her openness and understanding of the whole topic

Romans 1:18-32 - KJV (Public Domain)
Author: Paul
Date: 58

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them}
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so…: or, that they may be}
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. {more: or, rather}
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; {to retain: or, to acknowledge} {a reprobate…: or, a mind void of judgment or, an unapproving mind}
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: {without natural…: or unsociable}
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. {have…: or, consent with}

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE...ENOUGH SAID

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

The gay marriage isssaue is not about the love between two people of the same sex. If it were then they would not need it to be officialy recognized. A marriage is a manogamous relationship till the end of time. At least that's what is intended.
The real issue here is benefits such as tax breaks and more truly divorce. The main reason people get married in these days and times to ultimately take their spouse's money and or property in the divorce. Plain and simple, the real issue is gay people want the same rediculous divorce settlements as everybody else. I say go for it.

Our rights are guaranteed by the constitution, not the bible. Please read up on why this country was founded. It is a fascinating story which seems to elude many."With liberty and justice for all" is such a pesky concept for some.

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 worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever 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.

Christians make me puke.

I am 25 years old. Chances are, MOST of you writing are significantly older than that (or will just lie to that effect.) You are pathetically set in your ways and seem to forget that this is NOT an issue of religion. This is an issue of a LEGAL standpoint. You may remember that the Constitution is a living document. Able to be changed with the times. Gays and Lesbians have been forced for centuries to deny themselves the ability to be with a person that they love and want to spend their lives with because of people like yourselves that I have read nothing but filth from. I am not trying to change your minds, because that will never happen. You will always be ignorant to the times of today. I am writing simply to tell you that I feel sorry for you. You will never know what it is like to live hate free. You will never understand that the youth of today HATES you for the way you speak of our friends and family. You will never understand that regardless of the fact that I am a bisexual female, I know I will be meeting God in heaven when this life is over. And you can bet a million bucks that when I get there, I will be laughing in every single one of your faces. While I kiss your daughter.

Just thought everyone here might like to see how the Bible condemns homosexuality. The author of this (in my opinion, bad) article, only vaguely references the old testament. The author almost seems to be trying to mislead readers into believing that real Christians condemn homosexuality soley based on Adam and Eve. Here are many clear passages from the old and new testament that condemn homosexuality. Now, if someone says the Bible does not condemn homosexuality you can call them a liar. In the Bible there are also MANY references to God unleashing his wrath on un-holy nations.

Ok here are the verses:

Narrative references to homosexual behavior
Sodom...
Genesis 19:4-11

homosexual rape..
Judges 19

Lev. 20:13... Here is a passage you cant argue with:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New testament
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:8-11
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

In the end I leave God to judge but I do believe in maintaining a Godly nation with Godly morals and laws.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Sexual orientation is inborn, like skin and eye color. Discrimination based on inborn traits is immoral. The men who wrote the bible didn't understand this -- among many things that weren't understood at the time. We do. If you believe in god, you might note that it gave you a brain. Use it. Denigrating the loving relationship of another couple does nothing to strengthen my marriage or yours. If you think it does that for you, get counseling. If you wish to strengthen your marriage, try doing nice things for your spouse and focusing on YOUR relationship. The marriages of others are irrelevant to yours. You need only wish them well; stable, loving relationships are good for society. I can't believe we actually need to debate this in 2008. The fundamentalist churches have stunted the moral development of this country.

I am a conservative Christian and I am all for gay marriage, just not in the church.
Mans relationship to God is between that man and God. The individual is the one that must stand before him in the judgment and answer for his or her own actions. This will not be a judgment by peers and it should not be that way here either.
If two people choose to enter a legal contract with one another and receive the benefits of such contract, then so be it. They are also subject to that contract being dissolved and the repercussions of such.
The Christians responsibility in all this is to lead by example. We do not have the right to force our morals on others, that type of leadership has never been successful in any situation.
So for the Christians reading this, take heart that they can’t procreate and leave’em alone.

Leviticus 19:27: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Please don't defend your thoughts based on an Old Testament book with verses such as this one. Either that or never mess up the corner of your beard.

For those of you who don't understand why civil unions aren't equal protection under the law.. two words. Federal Recognition.
The Federal government does not recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships for tax purposes, for Social Security Benefits, etc. If I choose to marry another woman, instead of a man, there is still a partnering of two people. Why do you care if I choose to partner with a same sex partner instead of an opposite sex parter. If I had a husband would my benefits not go to him, so why not then if I partner with a woman. I pay taxes, A LOT OF TAXES, by the way. Despite what you believe, Gay couples do produce biological children. Gay men through Surrogate mothers, Lesbians through insemination, etc. They are families. Many of them also religious as well as gay or lesbian. They love their children the same as any parent would. Stop hating, and starting loving your brothers and sistes. Your actions are not Christian. Judge not lest ye be judged, and let ye who is without sin cast the first stone. Don't hate in the name of religion!

I have no issues with what other people do behind close doors as long as it is concentual. However I am very upset when I am forced to participate or subsidize behaviors that I do not support.

I am shocked that no one bothers to see this gay marriage issue from an economic stand point. This is all just a legal manuver to force everyone to financially support the gay lifestyle. With legal recognition of gay marrages they are now entitled to all the tax and work related benefits of traditional marrages. Benefits that I as a tax payer will now have to pay. Also look at the imigration issue, now I'm allow to sponsor immigration of my gay spouse?

What's wrong with this country? Democrats are going further left with their pandering of the leftist, and Republicans are going further right with their ultra conservatives. There leaves no party for the normal rational people of this country.

No wonder this presidential election has 3 of the worst candidates I've seen in my lifetime.

So much time spent in pointless arguing and artificial facts and point of view. Gays are not doing any crime and are not threatening our well being and good health. They threatening our set of "rules" we setup for ourselves and became prisoners of those rules. Yes, it is not natural because it is not leading to reproduction of our species - purpose of life to give life. And we are not to judge since we are killing ourselves with pesticides, chemicals and lifestyle everyday bringing the whole nation to degenerate state of spineless and mindless junk-eating mutants - don't want to offend anybody but we have to take charge of what we do and don't let everything become a matter of chance and "Bush fault".

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Perhaps when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage....

From a Gallup Poll dated May 8 - 11 2008

Question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Results: 40% - Should, 56% - Shouldn't, 4% - Unsure

And when you make statements like:

"Our founding fathers bestowed a right to individuality and equality through our amazing constitution."

When our founding fathers made it quite clear that they were not bestowing the right of equality, but that God had created all men equal...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Then it becomes easy to accept the idea that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Actually means that people should not have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Instead we are passing laws that inevitably will lead to my children being disciplined in a state school for not being accepting of Johnny's parents Adam and Steve.

Most importantly... If we believe that God doesn't affect a persons rights.... Then how could he have created them?

Supporters of big government (all democrats and nearly all republicans) have no one to blame but themselves. In a libertarian society like the one envisioned by our founding fathers, the government would have absolutely no say in what defines a marriage. Vote for the Libertarian Party candidate in the 2008 election to send our two major poltical parties a message: We want liberty and we don't want to play by their rules anymore.

The United States was established under a constitution for "individuality and equality", but also under the principals of the bible. If you don't want to take my word for it, do some unbiased research and see for yourself. George Washington did not want the values and principals of the bible to be separated from the government of the United States. Again, if you don't believe me, find out for yourself. I believe that if 2 people choice to be involved in a gay relationship, then that is their choice, but I do not believe that the United States government should be allowing them to marry. It is not against the United States constitution to prohibit gays from marrying. It is, however, against the constitution to forbid them from choosing to be gay. Marriage under the United States constitution is between a man and a woman, period, look it up.

If you allow gays to marry, you would also have to consider allowing people to do other things which are unconstitutional, such as marrying children or marrying animals, there are people out there that want to do that. Do they not also have rights? Do you see what I mean. You have to draw the line somewhere. And the line was already drawn when the United States was founded, shame on today's government for changing it.

I realize that some people may find these comments offensive, but wouldn't it be unconstitutional to sensor it or to not post it on this site?

I'll agree with the many of you who find angst and discuss with the thought of men marrying men or women marrying women (because they LOVE each other)ONLY if you will agree to push for a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal.
If marriage is so sacred then make the push.
Bet you won't.

I am 25 years old. Chances are, MOST of you writing are significantly older than that (or will just lie to that effect.) You are pathetically set in your ways and seem to forget that this is NOT an issue of religion. This is an issue of a LEGAL standpoint. You may remember that the Constitution is a living document. Able to be changed with the times. Gays and Lesbians have been forced for centuries to deny themselves the ability to be with a person that they love and want to spend their lives with because of people like yourselves that I have read nothing but filth from. I am not trying to change your minds, because that will never happen. You will always be ignorant to the times of today. I am writing simply to tell you that I feel sorry for you. You will never know what it is like to live hate free. You will never understand that the youth of today HATES you for the way you speak of our friends and family. You will never understand that regardless of the fact that I am a bisexual female, I know I will be meeting God in heaven when this life is over. And you can bet a million bucks that when I get there, I will be laughing in every single one of your faces. While I kiss your daughter.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...
Global warming, AIDS, Cancer, Middle East Crisis,
Nuclear Proliferation,...
We are sure doing a great job!

People keep referring to God as "he". After a couple thousand years you can recognize the delusions that creates.

I am scared with this lawlessness that the same will happen here what happened in Sodam and Gomorra.

The whole issue is due to some mispercieved discrimination. If this is the case then single people who have not married are equally discriminated against. Our government allows special pay to married military members but not to single. Married people get tax breaks single people do not. Marriage itself causes amazing amounts of legal issues everyday, through divorce, custody, pre-nuptial agreements and on and on. I believe marriage started out as a religious ceremony and as such should be seperated from the government by seperation of church and state. Do away with the governments legal recognition of marriage and return it to the church. Then there is no longer an issue gay marriage or straight marriage since it would no longer be a beneifit other then a religious recognition of love beteen two people.

Thanks for your post. If the country decides that gay marriage matters more than the war, the economy, energy policies, etc., then it has gone mad(der).

I'm a son of a Lutheran minister who has been with my male partner for 27 years. As one of four children in my family, I'm the only one who has never gotten a divorce. My nieces and nephews, who have been married ranging from 1 day to 2 years, all have rights with their spouses that my partner and I still do not have.

Considering I am 54, and had never even heard of the word "gay" until I was about 15 (although I knew since birth I was attracted to males) -- it's pretty amazing we are already have gay marriage in the United States. So that is quite an advance in 40 years.

Fortunately my partner was born in California, and we are going to go there and get married this fall. We live in New York, and the current status here is that the state recognizes marriages that were legally performed elsewhere. So .. fingers crossed, we'll get some recognition of our marriage when we come back to New York.

Having literally lived in a church for the first 18 years of my life, I find it so laughable when I see things like "Christians out to stop gay rights" or similar things. That is what "christians" do? Fortunately my father was an understanding man, and a respected minister, in a small town in the South. He accepted my partner during his lifetime, and my partner was welcomed as family when my father passed away. I truly believe gay marriage will eventually become legal throughout the United States, if the United States remains one country for another 50 years or so.

Also, I wanted to add in that I grew up in a racially segregated South and saw it change rather rapidly when I was about 10 years old ... so I know things can change and the end of segregation did not hurt me; it actually helped me. I think the same will be true of permitting gay marriages.

One last thing -- having been a teenager in the late 60s and 70s, I always thought marriage was really a dumb idea for anyone. But as you get older, if you are in a long term relationship, you realize that "marriage" really is all about government recognition of your relationship for your hospital visitation rights, your recognition to arrange your partner's funeral, social security benefits, inheritance tax privileges -- all the laundry list of things the term "marriage" now imparts.

I find it sickest of all that those of you who proclaim to be Christians are making the most hateful, demeaning, non-Christian, judgment statements throughout this entire posting. Shame on you! What right do YOU have to judge others, because you are a Christian?!?!

No, you are a hypocrite, an unloving, uncaring, prejudice person who likely wouldn't know that you were sitting next to a gay person at work, on the bus, or even in church.

Get a grip and use your energy for something important - try reaching out to someone in need instead of lasing out out someone different. Here's a concept - do something Christian for a change!!!!!!!!!

Manny states it best: "Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something."

I remember someone saying once that you can be so open minded that your brain falls out.

As a gay person and a Christian, I can honestly say that I don't want the Bible thrown out, however, I do think that the government needs to protect the rights of a secular minority. We live in a secular civil society, like it or not - NOT a theocracy. You can't have things both ways, folks - either all (men) are created equal, or they are not. If we take the word "men" in the Constitution to mean "citizens" (so as to be all-inclusive), then we have to recognize the fact that none are excluded. It does not say "All men are created equal - except blacks, browns, gays, women...."

It's discrimination against one minority, pure and simple, and in our form of government, although the majority votes, it IS in the purview of government to protect the rights of minorities.

Maybe the legal term for all marriages should be "Civil Union." I agree that "marriage" involves inviting God to the party. My partner and I would want to get married in a church, certainly. But there are many many people who just want a civil ceremony. That way, church weddings can be colloquially referred to as marriage, and all secular unions as Civil Unions. No more arguments. All the same rights, benefits - and liabilities, I might point out. Gays want the right to take on the debts of one another, as well as to make medical decisions for our spouses.

My girl and I have been together for 25 amazing years, and we're still crazy about one another. We have faith that things will eventually right themselves one way or the other. But my opinion is: In a country where separation of Church and State is mandated by the Constitution, no individual or group should be discriminated against on religious grounds. In other words, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist standards should not be in play - only the Law. So if your grounds for denial of rights to gays is that the Bible says so, I'm sorry - but that won't fly in a secular society. So either make it a theocracy, and then you can choose to do that, or accept the fact that gays should have the same rights as any other minority.

As a minister, I agree completely with this article. There is nothing more irritating to me than a bunch of politicians discussing the sanctity of marriage. Sanctity--holiness--is the realm of the church, not the government. If there's a legal concern for/against marriages, that needs to be regulated. Otherwise, let the religious leaders decide what's holy. Yes, some faith groups will make different decisions than others, but that's the beauty of a country that allows for religious freedom.

The problems our society faced are evident in this post. There is no tolerance for diverging opinions at all. It is sad that there is nothing civil about our society any more. Contributing to this is the complete and utter lack of understanding exhibited by the writer regarding the Constitution.

There is way too much hate on both ends of the spectrum to have a civil debate about anything.

The problem seems almost to be one of definition. If we say 'gay marriage,' many people immediately react in an emotionally defensive manner rather than having a real discussion. Because they feel -- and rightly so -- that people outside their church are trying to legislate their beliefs.

I am a Quaker, myself, and the foundation of my church is a belief in nonviolent solutions. If someone should try to define what 'nonviolence' actually meant through federal law, I would be unhappy. ("Oh, we passed a new law. Nonviolence now only means you won't use nuclear weapons!") The church is actually right; your government has no business trying to legislate your beliefs.

So hey, that is fine. We should do away with gay marriage! But we should ALSO do away with straight marriage. In fact, we should do away with 'marriage' entirely, at least insofar as we define laws.

Then 'marriage' becomes a term for the churches to dictate, rather than anything with legal standing. Because while the government has no business dictating what a religious term means, the church also has absolutely no business dictating who gets medical benefits or how they pay their taxes.

So let us just forget 'marriage.' For the sake of taxes (filing jointly), medical benefits (spousal coverage) and other things (next-of-kin and hospital visitation rights), we can have 'civil unions.' And those can be between a man and a woman, or two men, or two women. You can already go downtown, see a clerk and get a marriage certificate, right? A priest is not, legally, required for a 'marriage' as it is.

So, marriage remains the realm of the churches, and you get a Certificate of Union for tax and insurance purposes. Because from what I have seen, gay couples do not want recognition by the church. They want the legal rights of normal marriage such as filing taxes as a single household, or being covered by a partner's insurance.

So let's just end the dispute and get rid of 'marriage' as a legal concept entirely. Leave marriage up to the churches to define, and tax and benefits laws up to the government. Stop trying to define through law a term which is so emotionally charged and is, in all honesty, actually clouding the issue rather than clarifying it.

If anybody is worried about this being a slippery slope we should pass laws banning marriage with animals and polygamy. Suddenly the slope isn't slippery and gays can still marry.

Oh good, now we're using the bible to justify our selfish need for exclusion to validate our own existence. That's a great development for me personally because I've been looking for justification to murder people who speak unfavorably of me. Fortunately in 2 Kings 2:20 a group of kids made fun of Elijah for being bald, and through God he commanded some bears to maul every last one of them. Finally I have precedent, and from the bible no less! Infallibility is a beautiful thing.

P.S. Anyone wishing to comment unfavorably about this post should include his or her home address.

When a "Born Again Christian" is confronted with the subject of gay marriages, they immediatly start quoting the Old Testament. This is where my confussion comes in. First, God gave us the Old testament rules, Ten Commandments, etc. But he then realized, as humans we are incapable of abiding by these rules. He then came up with the idea of sacrficing his son for our sins. That all you have to do now is accept him as you lord a savior and you are forgiven. Hence, we have the New Testament. Back to the "Born Again Christian." If these people are Born again, why are they dwelling in the Old Testament. They have the New Testament. The Old Testament is a good history, period. I have yet to read any negative "rules" in the New Testament. Their salvation is in the New Testament thru Jesus. Nothing that the Gay Bashers can use is in the New Testament. I am a straight male. I do have friends that are gay, both male and female. They have been couples a lot longer than I have been married total (three ex-wives, 28 years). The gay couples I know seem to be more committed to one another than most straight couples I know. One female couple drew straws to see who would conceive and now have a beautiful baby boy, or I should say young child, he's 5, and very happy.
The male couple have been trying to adopt, but because they are not married (among other rules) they cannot adopt. I our state gay marriages are not recognized. I'll get off my soap box now.

For everyone throwing religion around, I refer you to the 1st Amendment. For all those who do not grasp the concept of a Democratic Republic, there is a reason why, on occasion, the rulings of judges are what take place instead of a vote. It is to prevent MOB rule, that if there are 99 people who think one way and 1 person who thinks another, that 1 person’s rights are protected, under our Constitution. It’s called Equal Protection under the Law. Please see the 14th Amendment: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It means if you don’t like gay marriage, that’s just fine. But you don’t have a right to stop it. In the end, it has no effect on your life, why do you care??? Of all the things going on in the world right now, don’t you have something more important to be worried about? The Bill of Rights stands above all of our personal beliefs and encompasses them at the same time. This is America, it’s called freedom, it’s picking your own life and not having the right to decide someone else’s. Is it actually hurting you or your life? No, it’s not. Get over it.
Signed -- Straight, Southern Born and Bred White Girl Sick of This Gay Bashing Foolishness

I find it sickest of all that those of you who proclaim to be Christians are making the most hateful, demeaning, non-Christian, judgment statements throughout this entire posting. Shame on you! What right do YOU have to judge others, because you are a Christian?!?!

No, you are a hypocrite, an unloving, uncaring, prejudice person who likely wouldn't know that you were sitting next to a gay person at work, on the bus, or even in church.

Get a grip and use your energy for something important - try reaching out to someone in need instead of lasing out out someone different. Here's a concept - do something Christian for a change!!!!!!!!!

Manny states it best: "Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something."

It'd be interesting to see the number of people who abuse this opportunity. While I believe it will be much less frequent for males (men seem to be for the most part more homophobic than women) it's possible that two same-sex unmarried friends will file for marriage simply to get the benefits.

This is not about religion. Churches all over america have been performing these marraiges for quite some time. its about the government recognizing them. The reality is that if two satan worshipers decided to get married in a ritual in which they wipe their butts on the bible, the government would recognize it as long as they are heterosexual. THAT'S A FACT!

Go ahead and grant minority status to a behavior.... (which is what they are doing, genetically predetermined or not, it is still a behavior that they are granting equal protection to) and there is no logical argument which can be made for why any other behavior cannot and should not be given the same equal protection.

I actually heard a gay woman proclaim that while she supported this ruling she did not think it would be correct if the goverment granted polygamists equal protection!??!!! Unbelievable!

-MikeBTexas

So much time spent in pointless arguing and artificial facts and point of view. Gays are not doing any crime and are not threatening our well being and good health. They threatening our set of "rules" we setup for ourselves and became prisoners of those rules. Yes, it is not natural because it is not leading to reproduction of our species - purpose of life to give life. And we are not to judge since we are killing ourselves with pesticides, chemicals and lifestyle everyday bringing the whole nation to degenerate state of spineless and mindless junk-eating mutants - don't want to offend anybody but we have to take charge of what we do and don't let everything become a matter of chance and "Bush fault".

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 worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever 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.

Supporters of big government (all democrats and nearly all republicans) have no one to blame but themselves. In a libertarian society like the one envisioned by our founding fathers, the government would have absolutely no say in what defines a marriage. Vote for the Libertarian Party candidate in the 2008 election to send our two major poltical parties a message: We want liberty and we don't want to play by their rules anymore.

> Daniel Bridges:
> What people aren't getting is that marriage is
> a religious thing, the Sacrament of Matrimony,
> and it has been wrongly entangled in our
> legal/political system.

Yes, what he said. But who are the courageous politicians who will push a new law eliminating the recognition of "marriage" in government?

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...
Global warming, AIDS, Cancer, Middle East Crisis,
Nuclear Proliferation,...
We are sure doing a great job!

The bible is quoted a lot, but no one ever cites the "begats". That's where the fun is

To be practical about it, what interest does the government have in promoting or sanctioning marriage at all?

It seems like in most of the 20th century the body of law around marriage has evolved to protect the weaker members of the family unit (women and children). This happens through providing penalties for divorce (child support, alimony) and incentives for remaining married (insurance coverage, easy of property transfer, etc.) It could be argued that keeping the family unit together is a good use of government resources -- don't kids of two-parent families generally have a better chance of success?

I don't know how much of this is valid anymore and it could be argued that the governments efforts here have been a failure. But rather than expand marriage to other types of relationships it seems like we need to understand what that is intended to accomplish and what the costs and other impacts are associated with it. How does this affect tax revenue? Will insurance rates increase as the number of "married" couples expands? What are the citizenship/immigration effects?

I honestly am torn by this whole issue but haven't heard any discussion of it in a practical sense.

Perhaps when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage....

From a Gallup Poll dated May 8 - 11 2008

Question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Results: 40% - Should, 56% - Shouldn't, 4% - Unsure

And when you make statements like:

"Our founding fathers bestowed a right to individuality and equality through our amazing constitution."

When our founding fathers made it quite clear that they were not bestowing the right of equality, but that God had created all men equal...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Then it becomes easy to accept the idea that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Actually means that people should not have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Instead we are passing laws that inevitably will lead to my children being disciplined in a state school for not being accepting of Johnny's parents Adam and Steve.

Most importantly... If we believe that God doesn't affect a persons rights.... Then how could he have created them?

MiamiKid said:
"If two people who love each other can marry regardless of gender, why not three?"

Indeed. If we follow the Bible, polygamy was common. My Baptist minister just did a Mother's Day sermon last week on Hannah and her plight to become a mother. Hannah was the wife of Elkanah. His other wife, Peninnah, teased Hannah non-stop about being barren, so she prayed to God and was granted a child (Samuel, of whom the book of the Bible that contains the story was named - 1st Samuel, chapter 1).

There are numerous other stories in the Bible that illustrate "righteous" marriage of multiple wives to one man. Why does the government have a right to make polygamy illegal, if gay unions are not illegal? Now that it is overturned in California, is polygamy next? Why not? Polygamy is even sanctioned by God, according to His own word. Uncle Sam and Arnie know better than God about whom citizens should marry?

I remember someone saying once that you can be so open minded that your brain falls out.

What really needs to happen is that legislation should be brought in to provide the same rights to those that are "lifetime partners", not those that are married.

I'm using that terminology, merely because it seems the best fit for both the states to use, and it is befitting the stance that those that are homosexual would prefer.

You see, IMHO the term "marriage" has been around much longer than political legislation that granted "a couple" the ability to receive better tax rates, medical benefits, etc. Which I believe is the primary concern of gay rights activists.
The term "marriage" is a term that was created when the bible was written as a union between a man and a woman.

Read up a little in Genesis chapter 34 of the King James Bible.
You'll also notice reference to the current methods most of folks do even today, in paying for their daughter's wedding. It mentions the "dowry" that is typically given for the daughter's hand in marriage in verse 12.

Thanks for your post. If the country decides that gay marriage matters more than the war, the economy, energy policies, etc., then it has gone mad(der).

I'm a son of a Lutheran minister who has been with my male partner for 27 years. As one of four children in my family, I'm the only one who has never gotten a divorce. My nieces and nephews, who have been married ranging from 1 day to 2 years, all have rights with their spouses that my partner and I still do not have.

Considering I am 54, and had never even heard of the word "gay" until I was about 15 (although I knew since birth I was attracted to males) -- it's pretty amazing we are already have gay marriage in the United States. So that is quite an advance in 40 years.

Fortunately my partner was born in California, and we are going to go there and get married this fall. We live in New York, and the current status here is that the state recognizes marriages that were legally performed elsewhere. So .. fingers crossed, we'll get some recognition of our marriage when we come back to New York.

Having literally lived in a church for the first 18 years of my life, I find it so laughable when I see things like "Christians out to stop gay rights" or similar things. That is what "christians" do? Fortunately my father was an understanding man, and a respected minister, in a small town in the South. He accepted my partner during his lifetime, and my partner was welcomed as family when my father passed away. I truly believe gay marriage will eventually become legal throughout the United States, if the United States remains one country for another 50 years or so.

Also, I wanted to add in that I grew up in a racially segregated South and saw it change rather rapidly when I was about 10 years old ... so I know things can change and the end of segregation did not hurt me; it actually helped me. I think the same will be true of permitting gay marriages.

One last thing -- having been a teenager in the late 60s and 70s, I always thought marriage was really a dumb idea for anyone. But as you get older, if you are in a long term relationship, you realize that "marriage" really is all about government recognition of your relationship for your hospital visitation rights, your recognition to arrange your partner's funeral, social security benefits, inheritance tax privileges -- all the laundry list of things the term "marriage" now imparts.

America's roots are founded in puratinism and puratinistic ideals. Don't forget that America never was founded as 'the land of the free' for most of the non-elite classes: blacks were slaves, women were subservient and considered property, children had no rights whatsoever, and other classes were viewed suspiciously or treated as having a reduced set of rights. Hence the culture of America has developed as such along those lines, in that the puratinistic elite feels it necessary to periodically impose its errant morality upon the masses at times. This is simply another one of those times, yet history shows the elite and public always eventually succumbs to progress with the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, both of which by the way were vehemently opposed by the majority of the public during their respective times.. both took an act of the judiciary or a strong political figure to step up to the plate and declare society was mistaken in its judgment. The same concept applies here, gays and gay marriage will eventually be accepted as the norm.

We create all manner of problems for ourselves when we try to put an equals sign ( = ) between the terms "Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony." They're NOT the same things.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals and the State. It doesn't happen when the Preacher says "I now pronounce you ..." It happens when the appropriate papers have been signed and duly filed with the appropriate Government office and the appropriate fee has been paid. As such, it falls within the pervue of the State to regulate it. Whether we like it or not, there is this thing called "separation of Church and State." The State doesn't get to say "you can't do this because the _____ (fill in the blank) religion says it's a sin.

Holy Matrimony falls within the pervue of the Church you choose to belong to. Holy Matrimony happens with the Priest, Rabbi, Imam, Minister, etc. santifies the union. Holy Matrimony has nothing to do with things like Tax Rates and Filing Status, or Government Benefits, or being able to visit in the Emergency Room or ICU, and the list goes on and on.

Comparing homosexual relationships to sex with a minor is a smoke screen designed to inflame and incense rather than actually address the issue. And as far as incest goes, the children born from incest are far more likely to have physical problem and ailments. So there is an actual reason for those laws. And I fail to see how allowing John and Dan or Katy and Susan to get married threatens or that matter affects MY marriage to Nancy.

The "Gay marriage" debate shows perfectly the problems that come from mixing religion with government, and why they should always be kept separate. The solution to the debate: everyone -- gay or straight -- gets the same rights in Civil Union, but only churches should be allowed to "marry". So the law should say: you get your Civil Union license from the State to determine your rights as a couple, and then you take that license over to your church and let your church decide if they want to perform a marriage or not. Most won't, of course, but that is their right.

What a wonderful contry we could have if we kept politicians out of our religious, financial, and personal lives!

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 worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever 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.

As a gay person and a Christian, I can honestly say that I don't want the Bible thrown out, however, I do think that the government needs to protect the rights of a secular minority. We live in a secular civil society, like it or not - NOT a theocracy. You can't have things both ways, folks - either all (men) are created equal, or they are not. If we take the word "men" in the Constitution to mean "citizens" (so as to be all-inclusive), then we have to recognize the fact that none are excluded. It does not say "All men are created equal - except blacks, browns, gays, women...."

It's discrimination against one minority, pure and simple, and in our form of government, although the majority votes, it IS in the purview of government to protect the rights of minorities.

Maybe the legal term for all marriages should be "Civil Union." I agree that "marriage" involves inviting God to the party. My partner and I would want to get married in a church, certainly. But there are many many people who just want a civil ceremony. That way, church weddings can be colloquially referred to as marriage, and all secular unions as Civil Unions. No more arguments. All the same rights, benefits - and liabilities, I might point out. Gays want the right to take on the debts of one another, as well as to make medical decisions for our spouses.

My girl and I have been together for 25 amazing years, and we're still crazy about one another. We have faith that things will eventually right themselves one way or the other. But my opinion is: In a country where separation of Church and State is mandated by the Constitution, no individual or group should be discriminated against on religious grounds. In other words, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist standards should not be in play - only the Law. So if your grounds for denial of rights to gays is that the Bible says so, I'm sorry - but that won't fly in a secular society. So either make it a theocracy, and then you can choose to do that, or accept the fact that gays should have the same rights as any other minority.

Here in Canada, we do have religious citizens who are obviously horrified by same-sex marriages, but fortunately they are a minority. Also, Canada became a constitutionally limited democracy in the 80s, and that shifted the legal treatment of equality issues away from the Christian domination that characterized our early years. Now, Canada actually has much stronger protections for religious freedom than the USA. For example, our Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that freedom of religion goes far beyond the freedom of Judeo-Christianity you have in the USA.

Many religions in Canada and most Canadians support same-sex marriage. It is here to stay.

I find it sickest of all that those of you who proclaim to be Christians are making the most hateful, demeaning, non-Christian, judgment statements throughout this entire posting. Shame on you! What right do YOU have to judge others, because you are a Christian?!?!

No, you are a hypocrite, an unloving, uncaring, prejudice person who likely wouldn't know that you were sitting next to a gay person at work, on the bus, or even in church.

Get a grip and use your energy for something important - try reaching out to someone in need instead of lasing out out someone different. Here's a concept - do something Christian for a change!!!!!!!!!

Manny states it best: "Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something."

I have never understood why our government is involved in marriage in the first place. If marriage is a sacrament of the church, and we have seperation of church and state....then the government should not be involved in the first place! The only place that I currently see where our government is involved in marriage, is in our income tax filing....joint or filing single to save on our taxes. So God saves me a few bucks? Our government should get out of the marriage business and stay within a civil union concept.
Those wishing to say their vows in church may continue to so so. Just stay out of the wishes of those people who don't!

I am a born and bred Californian whose best friend is a gay man. I am also Catholic and while I may be called a heretic for going against God's word, our country was founded on the premise that Church and State be separate. What happens behinds the closed doors of my best friend is none of my business, just as it none of his business what happens behind mine. Way to stand up and defend the equal rights of EVERYONE California! I am so proud!

This wouldn't be a problem if the authorities, whether state or fed, didn't recognize a religious institution. The government should be in the job of offering standard contracts that fit within its framework of laws. There should be one where people can join their property together and it should clearly layout the provisions for disolution. That's it. Any religious aspect is between you and your church.

So if you think homosexuality is a sin, don't do it. I don't see why you care what others are doing in the privacy of their homes. I live in Massachusetts and I'm glad to say the gay marriages here haven't affected my hetero marriage in the least, contrary to what the religious zealots predicted. And they didn't turn my son gay either. You should worry about your own messed up lives first. Usually the ones screaming the loudest in front of church are the ones who are the biggest sinners. Jesus taught love and you haters are therefore not Christians.

Ths solution to this problem has been discussed for years - and it remains so simple - seperation of church and state:

MARRIAGE is a religions construct - and should occur only in churches. No state involvement. Churches can fully define who does and does not get married.

CIVIL UNION is a state construct - and can only be granted only under goverment authority. No church involvement - no religious dimenion. The state can define the rules for civil unions.

Single ceremonies could still exist where both of these happen together.

That's it. So simple.

What amazes me is how controversial this topic really is. Can't we all just get along! cliche I know but still....

The problem is that homosexuality has been seen as such a negative thing and those who live this life style are considered weird or abnormal. When someone who is weird or abnormal petitions the state for the same rights as everyone else it is viewed as a threat to the status quo. As if they are better than those who are homosexuals.

The fact of the matter is that every human on Earth has the potential for becoming gay, bi or lesbian. Lust, power, greed, and pleasure are psychologically built in to our psyche and those who don't act on those feelings usually end up with many mental issues. Ladies, those men out there who have inferiority complexes are probably denying the fact that they could ever find another man attractive. Guess what, secretly they're eyeing your other boyfriend.

Wow - I agree with the center argument with of the Minister below, which is kind of interesting because I don't believe in God or sin.

He is right that marriage should not be included in the legal realm - it is absolutely a private matter and it does not make any sense for a secular nation to have its government regulate love relationships.

I just don'nt care, really- cause I look at it this way, if it's wrong, and God does not like it, there just going to be more elbow room for me in Heaven, or if God says it ok, I do want to get him (or her) pissed off at me for hurting any of his/her gay friends( and getting me put on the down slide to >>>>) So I just mind my own business and try to go through life "LIVING THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE" and not hurting any one wishing them all a happy life instead of worshiping the " words" which in my opinion have become a false god some pray to. AND then again if theres no god, it does not matter. So by Vegas bets its either 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3-- so I should be a winner with this view.. I hope to see pictures of happy couples in the paper in a few days. GOOD luck and may GOD/BUDDA/THOR/ZEUS/APPLO/RAE/YAHHEW/Mohamed/Jesus/Jery Rice ( he must be a god the way he played) bless you--- not taking any chances I am putitng my money on every one

I don't understand about the arguments that homosexuality is wrong because they can't have children naturally. There seems to be this end-of-the-world mentality that gay people are going to destroy this country. The world is already overpopulated causing an unmeasurable amount of problems, not just the "global food crisis." One should not be worried that the human race is going to die out because some people are gay. The key word there is "some," not all. Not to mention gay men's sperm could be used to impregnate a lesbian. There. No problem.
So good job California, for finally reading America's Consititution and Amendments and putting into action the fact that there is separation of church and state in this country and "separate but equal" went out with the Civil Rights Movement. (or at least should have)

Oh good, now we're using the bible to justify our selfish need for exclusion to validate our own existence. That's a great development for me personally because I've been looking for justification to murder people who speak unfavorably of me. Fortunately in 2 Kings 2:20 a group of kids made fun of Elijah for being bald, and through God he commanded some bears to maul every last one of them. Finally I have precedent, and from the bible no less! Infallibility is a beautiful thing.

P.S. Anyone wishing to comment unfavorably about this post should include his or her home address.

My marriage to my wife is a sacred bond that she and I share. I USED to think that homosexuals should not be given the right to get married and bastardize this commitment I hold so dear. NOW I know that homosexuals are the least of my worries. With divorce rates well above 50%, drive-thru wedding chapels, marriage/divorce/adultery reality shows, etc. I can't really convince myself that hypocritical heterosexuals can be too genuinely concerned about gay marriage marring the "sanctity" of marriage. There is NOTHING that gay marriage can do to tarnish this "sacred" bond of matrimony that heterosexuals have not ALREADY done! Homosexual acts may be a sin in the bible, but it's still nobody's business! Gluttony is a sin as well, but I don't see good Christian folk rallying outside of buffet restaurants! WWJD? I think he would LOVE HIS BROTHER, not CONDEMN him for being different! How about a little TOLERANCE people!?!? This world could use some.

For the gentleman named Chris (9th posting down), are you for real??? SO, what you're saying is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive a child, than they do not deserve to be married because they cannot "experience" raising a child which was conceived by the two of them??? Wake-up we have enough Children in this world as it is. The point of getting married isn't just about having children. Some people don't want Children. Unfortunately, heterosexuals are having too many of them!!! Ever heard of over population??? It's comments like this that truly shed light on how ignorant some people are.

I am an American Muslim and also find it hard to understand the big debate. Although Islam forbids acts of homosexuality, everyone is equal in their rights to privacy. What people do in their homes is between them, their living partners, and god.....

Here in Canada, we do have religious citizens who are obviously horrified by same-sex marriages, but fortunately they are a minority. Also, Canada became a constitutionally limited democracy in the 80s, and that shifted the legal treatment of equality issues away from the Christian domination that characterized our early years. Now, Canada actually has much stronger protections for religious freedom than the USA. For example, our Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that freedom of religion goes far beyond the freedom of Judeo-Christianity you have in the USA.

Many religions in Canada and most Canadians support same-sex marriage. It is here to stay.

"I think people who believe that homosexuality is against God should be respected for their beliefs."

Why? Why do they deserve our respect for holding outdated bigoted beliefs based on no evidence whatsoever?!

I'm not saying they shouldn't be respected as people. But respected FOR these beliefs... more like respected in spite of them!

Sorry, but I'm fed up with granting people automatic respect just because of their religious belifes. Respect is something that should be earned, not just given because of someone's faith.

Yes, I have been reading Dawkins.

"Should someone who is Bi be allowed to have both a Husband and a wife? Two wives? Two husbands? A whole group? It is all supposed to be about choice, and freedom thereof. That is the argument for Gay Marriage. What about that plantation in Texas that just got raided, is that OK in California? That has a better Constitutional argument under Freedom of Religion than this nonsense has.

The more important thing is here we have a State Law that was voted on by a 60% majority in the State of California, get overturned by 4 judges. Judges are not supposed to write laws, yet that is what these 4 judges are doing, in defiance of the will of the people. That is a major problem."
----------------------------------------

The argument for gay marriage is not about choice. It is about according the same Constitutional rights to every citizen. To deny fundamental rights, such as marriage (see the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings), you must have a compelling state purpose for that denial. In the case of gay marriage, there is none. Laws prohibiting marriage by gays/lesbians violate the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments.

Your point about four judges overturning the will of the voters in the state shows a complete ignorance of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The purpose of both is to preserve rights that are inalienable-- regardless of the majority's wishes. Please read a high school civics textbook before your next post.

Too bad everyone. I'm a man and can't have kids, can't have periods, don't have an extra set of ribs, no fallopian tubes, no female parts at all. This is not fair?

All of us were born with (one) mother ( female ) and ( one ) father ( male ).
This is not fair?

To be fair to every living person is impossible...
To bad, deal with it.

This decision should be reversed. It's a travesty. I have gay friends and I accept them because they are human beings. However, this belittles my marriage to a woman. Obviously, not everyone believes in God. As someone named 'Jamie' said here, "Marriage was, is, and has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. This is the exact definition that the Founding Fathers of this country recognized and accepted as truth." Why do we need to change that? Are we so arrogant?

We as a society, in our foolish arrogance, continue to smear morality and excuse it with the word 'freedom'. There is a sect of pedophiles in America. They wish to mainstream their idea of sexuality. Should we accept their exploits in the name of freedom? Will we one day be called prejudiced because we don't approve of them? Will we one day be asked to accept marriage to children by adults?

I believe it will offend God when gay people include Him in their marriage ceremonies. The very thought offends me to the core. I believe the God of the universe designed marriage and we mere humans should not mess with that.

So if you think homosexuality is a sin, don't do it. I don't see why you care what others are doing in the privacy of their homes. I live in Massachusetts and I'm glad to say the gay marriages here haven't affected my hetero marriage in the least, contrary to what the religious zealots predicted. And they didn't turn my son gay either. You should worry about your own messed up lives first. Usually the ones screaming the loudest in front of church are the ones who are the biggest sinners. Jesus taught love and you haters are therefore not Christians.

I have no issues with what other people do behind close doors as long as it is concentual. However I am very upset when I am forced to participate or subsidize behaviors that I do not support.

I am shocked that no one bothers to see this gay marriage issue from an economic stand point. This is all just a legal manuver to force everyone to financially support the gay lifestyle. With legal recognition of gay marrages they are now entitled to all the tax and work related benefits of traditional marrages. Benefits that I as a tax payer will now have to pay. Also look at the imigration issue, now I'm allow to sponsor immigration of my gay spouse?

What's wrong with this country? Democrats are going further left with their pandering of the leftist, and Republicans are going further right with their ultra conservatives. There leaves no party for the normal rational people of this country.

No wonder this presidential election has 3 of the worst candidates I've seen in my lifetime.

Dear against Gay marriage:

I believe that you misunderstand the issue. Nowhere in the decision does the court rule that churches are required to marry anybody they don't want to marry. Churches are free to decline to marry anybody they choose. Always has been always will be. We have freedom of religion here so you are free to read tea leaves till your blue in the face. Or not if that is your wish.

Unfortunately, the vast vast vast majority of religious people believe that that freedom of religion means that everybody is free to practice *their* religion and that it does not mean that people are free to practice another religion or and here comes the real big one so get ready for the shocker of a lifetime... NO RELIGION AT ALL. Yes, believe it or not, people here have the right to be free from the religious constraints of your blind faith.

You can define marriage in your church however you want. That has no impact on how the government defines marriage as the legal partnership between two people, (which is exactly what is is).

Take me for example. I'm married. Yes to a woman. We were married by the Mayor of our town in a park, not by or sanctioned by a church. We do not believe in your god. Because you seem to argue that marriage is a religious term only. I suppose you would say our marriage is worth less than yours or perhaps worth nothing at all. I suppose I would respond by telling you where you can stick that.

Josh --

This is not godly nation as you put it or in other words, an oligarchy. It is a secular democratic country. Dont like it... move to iran.

I am a born and bred Californian whose best friend is a gay man. I am also Catholic and while I may be called a heretic for going against God's word, our country was founded on the premise that Church and State be separate. What happens behinds the closed doors of my best friend is none of my business, just as it none of his business what happens behind mine. Way to stand up and defend the equal rights of EVERYONE California! I am so proud!

Society's values and rules evolve! Always has and always will evolve. I think most of us agree that this is a good thing. Marriage has evolved too... Marriage used to be mostly about property rights and controlling women.

This is the way it always has been is not a good enough argument. Women used to not be able to vote; that changed. Blacks were not allowed to attend the same schools as whites, and were slaves in this country. Not a society I would be proud of, but I am proud that our society evolves!

Marriage as a religious institution is not required to change. However, when you attach federal and state benefits to marriage--it is no longer about religion, it is about civil rights. If you were REALLY worried about what the bible says, you would be protesting divorce, adultery, and other "abominations".

What two consenting people do behind closed doors without a victim is nobody's business. For "Christians" who aren't supposed to judge, I see a lot of judgmental comments here. That's not your business, it is between G-d and the respective individuals.

Do you really think that banning same-sex marriage is going to make homosexuality go away? Come on, wake up. It just makes hurtful situations (think of the former NJ governor's family) There has always been homosexuality in every society of the world--it is just a difference of how humane people treat each other. It was accepted in Native american societies and people are killed every day in the middle east. If i were to wager bets, I suspect judgement day is going to be a bit harsher on those who murder innocent folks.

Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Spain all have same-sex marriage and yet opposite-sex marriages are still alive and strong without any threat.

I'm proud to be a Californian and proud that society is enlightening and evolving for the better.

Everyone keeps getting hung up on the words that are being used.

Language is nothing more than an agreed upon definition for a particular term. Language changes like everything else on this planet - just look at the word gay for a perfect example; used to mean just happy. Then it got applied to a group of people, and now it means homosexual.

Marriage as a word only has power because it's been officially recognized in so many public documents and rights and responsibilities have been identified by it.

But since it HAS been officially recognized, it should apply across the board to any pairing of people who wish to partake of the benefits and share the responsibilities.

To refute the most common arguments:

1) Marriage is sacred - since when? Marriage is a contract & always has been - there's nothing sacred about it; evidence: Las Vegas & celebrity weddings. The biggest threat to marriage isn't gays, it's divorce.

2) God says it's bad - according to who? The Bible? Here's a bit of trivia for you bible thumpers: it's a flawed book. Want proof? Book of Matthew, Jesus goes to John the Baptist and John says "I'm not worthy to baptize you, it is you who should baptize me." After he baptizes him, the Spirit of God descends like a dove. Pretty story, nice fairy tale. Book of John, Chapter 1, verse 37, John the Baptist says that he wouldn't have known who Jesus was except that he'd been told it would be the one upon whom he saw the Spirit descend. So if the Spirit descends *after* the baptism, why does John think he's unworthy to baptize Jesus *before* the baptism? Good luck rationalizing that one away.

3) Tradition & Culture - this is a blatant excuse for bigotry. History is full of traditions and culture that are outdated and flat out unethical and wrong; example: human sacrifice, witch burnings, torture, etc. "it's not the way it's always been done" is a lousy excuse. Just because we always condoned slavery didn't make it right.

Probably the best idea to resolve this whole nonsensical issue is one that I read awhile back: remove the government recognition of what has become a religious subject. Everyone gets a civil union if they want government benefits - gays & straights both. You want to get married and sanctified go see your pastor - you want tax filings and legal inheritance made easy you go see the county clerk.

I have never understood why our government is involved in marriage in the first place. If marriage is a sacrament of the church, and we have seperation of church and state....then the government should not be involved in the first place! The only place that I currently see where our government is involved in marriage, is in our income tax filing....joint or filing single to save on our taxes. So God saves me a few bucks? Our government should get out of the marriage business and stay within a civil union concept.
Those wishing to say their vows in church may continue to so so. Just stay out of the wishes of those people who don't!

Somebody wrote:

"You are pathetically set in your ways and seem to forget that this is NOT an issue of religion. This is an issue of a LEGAL standpoint. You may remember that the Constitution is a living document. Able to be changed with the times."

I hope you won't object when voters decide to change it, so...

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...
Global warming, AIDS, Cancer, Middle East Crisis,
Nuclear Proliferation,...
We sure are doing a great job!

Too bad everyone. I'm a man and can't have kids, can't have periods, don't have an extra set of ribs, no fallopian tubes, no female parts at all. This is not fair?

All of us were born with (one) mother ( female ) and ( one ) father ( male ).
This is not fair?

To be fair to every living person is impossible...
To bad, deal with it.

So if you think homosexuality is a sin, don't do it. I don't see why you care what others are doing in the privacy of their homes. I live in Massachusetts and I'm glad to say the gay marriages here haven't affected my hetero marriage in the least, contrary to what the religious zealots predicted. And they didn't turn my son gay either. You should worry about your own messed up lives first. Usually the ones screaming the loudest in front of church are the ones who are the biggest sinners. Jesus taught love and you haters are therefore not Christians.

I find it sickest of all that those of you who proclaim to be Christians are making the most hateful, demeaning, non-Christian, judgment statements throughout this entire posting. Shame on you! What right do YOU have to judge others, because you are a Christian?!?!

No, you are a hypocrite, an unloving, uncaring, prejudice person who likely wouldn't know that you were sitting next to a gay person at work, on the bus, or even in church.

Get a grip and use your energy for something important - try reaching out to someone in need instead of lasing out out someone different. Here's a concept - do something Christian for a change!!!!!!!!!

Manny states it best: "Those who seek to bar gays from legal marriage are behaving no differently than those who sought to bar African-Americans from voting or women from voting. It's prejudice and fear, plain and simple.

The equal protection clause means something."

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32)

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Those of you who claim that marriage is "sacred" and should be only between a man and a woman really should start putting this much rhetoric and effort into abolishing divorce as well. Maybe its just me, but there isn't much sacred about marriage. I disagree with the viewpoints of "civil unions" only for gays.... it sounds very similar to "seperate, but equal" which is heavy on the former and light on the latter. Religion should have absolutely nothing to do with this issue at all. Cheating on your spouse is supposed to be immoral, touching little boys is supposed to be immoral, and hate is supposed to be immoral, unless you are a christian and can find a reference in the bible to hide your bigotry behind. As far as gay couples adopting children, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. With the divorce rate and amount of children born out of wedlock, very few children can claim to be to be the product of a mother/father household. In fact, it should be discouraged if the children are taught to hate and discriminate people who believe differently. I believe religion's time has come and gone.... It made sense previously to explain different phenomenon and to get everyone to have a similar moral doctrine, but with the many conflicting interpretations, religion is breathing is last breaths. by the way, straight and divorced, male 26, reasonably intelligent (by my own standards of course...)

Why do you even bother to have a constitution that demands separation of State and church is beyond me. It simply plants a seed of hypocrisy. I'll bet all Christians believe that the Ten Commandment is a very important tablet in their life. If you are one of them, can you even site it by heart? That important? So that you won't be embarrassed by people like me, make an effort to memorize it. Some day you might even practice it.

If you believe in the bible, then God is all knowing and all seeing. What he/she sees are humans overrunning the planet and killing it, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
So God tried to create illnesses to control our population, we found a cure for those.
God tries natural disasters, we move to other places and start again.
Finally God says, I will make man lust for man, and woman lust for woman. Zero population growth. God is great!

Well it looks like we could all use a little enlightening ....Christian and Non Christian a like. "It is what it is!" It really don't matter how we see it if there is a God in heaven and I feel sure there is - what matters is how he views it.....If he made us- it's His rules. Can the creation rule over the creator...I think not.
Let's step back just a sec. One of the other folks wrote that it was a bunch of crap to say “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Well my Bible teaches just that....... It says we are all sinners and there is no greater or lessor sin in the eyes of God, except one and that's blasphemy against the Holy ghost! So with that out of the way - we now know we are all sinners! Christ died as a atonement for all our sins and it is written that it is Gods will that none of us be lost. Then we also need to look a little further into scripture.... we are all sinners and it says we should get the beam (like to hole up the roof on a house) out of our eye so we can see clearly before we try and get the mote (a small speck) out of our brothers eye. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God every day! If you study what scripture has to say and start to apply it to your life and people see that it works they will start to watch and see what it is that is different about you. Introduce them to the scriptures and let God do the work in their lives. You can't change them only a personal relationship with him can. I have many friends that are gay, overweight, that curse....ect. I still love them and they respect my convictions. Do I preach at them and Judge them .......I have no right to ....but if they ask me what scripture has to say about things I know where to point them. The bible says Judge not least ye be judged with the same measure. I know I could stand against my own judgment so I'll just hold off on that. If it's wrong in Gods eyes is the important thing for me personally to deal with when I make decisions for my life....I can't make your mind up nor can I change night to day or day to night. - Live your faith and if your a Christian show the world Christ in your life.
Show the world unconditional love..................

Too bad everyone. I'm a man and can't have kids, can't have periods, don't have an extra set of ribs, no fallopian tubes, no female parts at all. This is not fair?

All of us were born with (one) mother ( female ) and ( one ) father ( male ).
This is not fair?

To be fair to every living person is impossible...
To bad, deal with it.

All of you who exclaim that Marriage is a Church/Religious thing and the government should keep out of it have got it wrong!

Marriage dates back to when the church governed the people. Marriage was considered a binding legal document that was used for the purpose of legally assigning property and chattel (of which the wife was considered). A man who married a woman became the proud owner of said woman, and her property.

There was no love involved. There was very little God involved, except that God was considered the highest Ruling Authority (today's Supreme Court). You know...what God has put forth, let no man put assunder."

This was all for LEGAL purposes, NOT religious purposes.

Marriage in a secular society such as ours is a social and legally contractual arrangement first, and a religous arrangement secondarily. At the time of a divorce, the contractual part comes into play when property is divided, child custody is decided, and future financial obligations (depending on the state) in the form of child and spousal support are determined. For this reason, gay people should have every right to establish legal parnerships between themselves if they wish.

Only secondarily do religious elements play a part....many people get married in a church - but how many get divorced in church??

Religion is and should remain voluntary, whereas social contracts (such as marriage) have a legal and contractually binding dimension. As we would expect, many of the devoutly religious here see it differently, but then we're speaking of beliefs based on faith vs codified law.

They are no doubt bound together in the minds of many, but when the state intervenes, secular law is the only thing that really matters.

We are very fortunate in this society to see such a separation of church and state where marriage and divorce is concerned - compare our civil laws with the Muslim Sharia law for example, and decide which you might prefer to live with when it comes time to disolve an undesirable marriage.

I thought that California already provides all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through a domestic-partnership status.

The only things gays want is the social status associated with marriage.

America is nutty and turning fruitier & fruitier.

Looking at our country's founding with 20th century glasses is foolish.

This is a social issue being decided by our esteemed court Jesters who seem to be content in the belief that they know what is better for America than the populace, legislative due process & common sense.

Pure rubbish.

What next? Marrying animals? Of course you are having sex ... Marry them too. The sad part is that we are trying to FIX the world, change their beliefs , change their customs. Is this where we are leading the world? Is that all we can do?

Fix your divorce rates !!!!

I am not for or against gay marriage but I know that when the times comes for the Father to come back he will cast his judgement and if you have not repented of your sins you will be damned to hell. God talks about this very thing in the bible. We must repent and be saved. It talks about the end times when men will be lovers of men. It's near people. The end is near and I wanna be found with a repented heart. God is against the sexual relationship with homosexuals and lesbians-Read the word of God and you'll know. Leviticus. God is not against marraige but the sin of homosexuality.

Coming from a straight woman, I agree with everyone who talks about the difference between a UNION and a MARRIAGE. No, same-sex couples should not be given or denied legally the right to marry, as it is a religious ceremony, end of story. Every couple should be given a civil union, and then it is up to them to add the religious level of "marriage," if they so choose and are accepted.

I love how people talk about the sanctity of marriage. Are you kidding me?? With the rate of adultery and divorce being so high, can you really tell me that marriage is half as sacred as it used to be? That's why Christians/Catholics are such hypocrites - you denounce same-sex unions because you think it's a sin. How many of you Bible-beaters have had premarital sex? What about children out of wedlock? What about eating meat on Fridays during Lent? What about shellfish? What about taking it upon yourself to JUDGE SOMEONE ELSE - because guess what, those are ALL against YOUR religion. I am not agnostic, atheist, whatever else you'll undoubtedly label me, I am Jewish, and unlike all of you who have chosen to ignore the saying "he who lives in a glass house shall not throw stones," I practice what I preach. I am not without sin (although we don't believe that you can just go out and do what you want and all will be forgiven - we think you actually have to atone for your actions), therefore, I have no right to denounce anyone else.

And to the poster who talked about same-sex marriages being wrong because they wouldn't produce children, thus leading to a dead (not death, buddy) Earth - that is an extremely ignorant statement to make, considering the outrageous level of over-population we have on our planet today. We do not have nearly enough resources to sustain the people we already do have, never mind suggesting that we should only allow those to marry who would ADD to that problem. Unless you personally are willing to give up your food, shelter, resources, etc, to these additional human beings, then by no means should you be encouraging population growth.

Marriage is a personal union between individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock. The act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of the law and society.

I am scared with this lawlessness that the same will happen here what happened in Sodam and Gomorra.

Well it looks like we could all use a little enlightening ....Christian and Non Christian a like. "It is what it is!" It really don't matter how we see it if there is a God in heaven and I feel sure there is - what matters is how he views it.....If he made us- it's His rules. Can the creation rule over the creator...I think not.
Let's step back just a sec. One of the other folks wrote that it was a bunch of crap to say “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Well my Bible teaches just that....... It says we are all sinners and there is no greater or lessor sin in the eyes of God, except one and that's blasphemy against the Holy ghost! So with that out of the way - we now know we are all sinners! Christ died as a atonement for all our sins and it is written that it is Gods will that none of us be lost. Then we also need to look a little further into scripture.... we are all sinners and it says we should get the beam (like to hole up the roof on a house) out of our eye so we can see clearly before we try and get the mote (a small speck) out of our brothers eye. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God every day! If you study what scripture has to say and start to apply it to your life and people see that it works they will start to watch and see what it is that is different about you. Introduce them to the scriptures and let God do the work in their lives. You can't change them only a personal relationship with him can. I have many friends that are gay, overweight, that curse....ect. I still love them and they respect my convictions. Do I preach at them and Judge them .......I have no right to ....but if they ask me what scripture has to say about things I know where to point them. The bible says Judge not least ye be judged with the same measure. I know I could stand against my own judgment so I'll just hold off on that. If it's wrong in Gods eyes is the important thing for me personally to deal with when I make decisions for my life....I can't make your mind up nor can I change night to day or day to night. - Live your faith and if your a Christian show the world Christ in your life.
Show the world unconditional love..................

MASSACHUSETTS - Gay marriage on the books for four years now. Still has the lowest divorce rate in the country and is near the top in economic prosperity besides. OKLAHOMA - One of the most conservative states. Meth addiction rampant. Gay marriage probably not likely in our lifetimes. Has the country's highest divorce rate. Go figure.

It's truly tragic that this discourse is peppered with biblical and religious justification for a civil matter.

I'm a gay man. I had to go to Canada to get married because it's "un-American" as well as immoral, indecent, etc. (I don't believe any of that)

I have been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for 28 years--yes, I said 28. Most of our friends have been in similar relationships for over 20 years. We're not the promiscuous prowlers folks like to imagine gay people to be.

My partner was married and because of that I have children and grandchildren. I value family just as anyone else would. We go to the circus, we go to t-ball, we celebrate birthdays and Christmas and everything else

Sound aberrant? Or abhorrent? Not where I'm standing...

I'd like to know that when my partner is critically ill that I can get into the hospital to see him as a family member (no, we can't do that because we're not allowed to marry). I'd like to get the same tax benefits that a heterosexual couple gets. I'd like to insure my partner under my healthcare plan which might take the burden off Medicare for a few years. And I'd like to know there's not going to be an impediment to sharing his legacy or leaving him mine when we die.

Do I sound unreasonable? I sure hope not...

Why do any of you really care if two consenting adults want to get married? I am willing many of you scoff at the idea that you can't buy alcohol in Muslim countries because it is against their religion. But how is this any different. You don't accept it because of the bible; but whatever happened to separation of church and state? It is also those people that think the government has no business in their private lives; how is this any different? What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does it really effect you? Are you afraid that in some way this is going to de-value your own marriage. This world would be so much more peaceful if people would just mind their own business!

It's funny how gay marriage supporters are all of a sudden constitutional scholars, but the standard changes when it comes to other issues like gun ownership. The fact of the matter is that society should determine what is right, regardless of what the constitution says. (I'm not even sure if the constitution argument even works here.) And what is right is that two people of the same sex should not be married. Most people deep down inside know that gay marriage is wrong.

Too bad everyone. I'm a man and can't have kids, can't have periods, don't have an extra set of ribs, no fallopian tubes, no female parts at all. This is not fair?

All of us were born with (one) mother ( female ) and ( one ) father ( male ).
This is not fair?

To be fair to every living person is impossible...
To bad, deal with it.

The media and government has duped us into believing that homosexuality is healthy and morally acceptable but it is very destructive and hurtful to children and families. Problem is we as a society have been groomed for tolerance which basically means being a .....turn your brain off, do not question anything, puppet on a string, fence post sitter. Why has tolerance become so successful.....because we love what we should not have....lust, vulgarity, adultery...etc.
Repressed feelings.....homophobia...bigotry....
can't someone add something significant. Tell me....do you support murder, how about lying, stealing....Are you anti law, anti criminal justice. The fact is that tolerance of wretchedness breeds societal breakdown. The Romans, Greeks, Assyerians, Babalonians all descintigrated due to moral chaos.
Friends, you may not believe it but we're headed that way. Stats on marriage are just one example. Don't know a single child who's been through divorce nor adult for that matter....that was anything but wrecked over it.....if they're truely candid with you. Of course what do kids matter to us......they're only our future! Guess what...they’re watching all this. They need good role models. Tolerance of homosexuality is like saying we should all die of AIDS (South Africa is nearly 50% affected by population), that we should create a generation of dysfunctional children. Now polygamists want in.......those advocating incest and pediphelia want in.......and a lot of those groups have shown to lobby on the gay agenda funded by your tax dollars........wake up man!!!

Somebody wrote:

"You are pathetically set in your ways and seem to forget that this is NOT an issue of religion. This is an issue of a LEGAL standpoint. You may remember that the Constitution is a living document. Able to be changed with the times."

I hope you won't object when voters decide to change it, so...

I just love to read comments by those individuals who always go toward the most gutter like thoughs each time the issue of gay marriage is raised. They talk about allowing murder, marrying your sister, having sex with animals. I have to tell you these are twisted people. For people who consider themselves "good Christian Folk", and I would assume want others to think of them the same way, they think really dirty thoughts.
I've been a gay man all my life and I nor any of my friends or family have ever considered these practices.
The Bible, ah, the source of all the bigotry espoused by these folk. A book put together over centuries, written by various authors who's sources are unknown or unverified, edited by countless Kings, Popes, priests or whoever for their own political purpose. If it did start out as "the word of God", it sure has been changed by "man" for his own purposes.
Oh, by the way, there are more references in the Bible to "straight" people screwing up sex than any references to anything gay.
And to all of you people who were married in a religious ceremony and are now divorced...What happend to the vow you took..."What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".
If you all really believe in the religious nature of marriage and want the rest of us to follow your lead, then start a petition drive to outlaw divorce. I'd love to see that on the floor of Congress beging debated and voted on by divorced Congressmen and Senators.
I pay taxes, lots of taxes in my lifetime, and as such I believe i should have the same government given rights as the next person. Churches are given the right to perform legal marriages by the government. So let the government offices marry any person, gay or straight, and let the churches marry those that want a religious ceremony and fit the rules. Other countries function this way. They realize that government has no place in religion and it should also be that religion has no place in Government in the United States

I thought that California already provides all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through a domestic-partnership status.

The only things gays want is the social status associated with marriage.

America is nutty and turning fruitier & fruitier.

Looking at our country's founding with 20th century glasses is foolish.

This is a social issue being decided by our esteemed court Jesters who seem to be content in the belief that they know what is better for America than the populace, legislative due process & common sense.

Pure rubbish.

I thought that California already provides all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through a domestic-partnership status.

The only things gays want is the social status associated with marriage.

America is nutty and turning fruitier & fruitier.

Looking at our country's founding with 20th century glasses is foolish.

This is a social issue being decided by our esteemed court Jesters who seem to be content in the belief that they know what is better for America than the populace, legislative due process & common sense.

Pure rubbish.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done...
Global warming, AIDS, Cancer, Middle East Crisis,
Nuclear Proliferation,...
We sure are doing a great job!

Well it looks like we could all use a little enlightening ....Christian and Non Christian a like. "It is what it is!" It really don't matter how we see it if there is a God in heaven and I feel sure there is - what matters is how he views it.....If he made us- it's His rules. Can the creation rule over the creator...I think not.
Let's step back just a sec. One of the other folks wrote that it was a bunch of crap to say “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Well my Bible teaches just that....... It says we are all sinners and there is no greater or lessor sin in the eyes of God, except one and that's blasphemy against the Holy ghost! So with that out of the way - we now know we are all sinners! Christ died as a atonement for all our sins and it is written that it is Gods will that none of us be lost. Then we also need to look a little further into scripture.... we are all sinners and it says we should get the beam (like to hole up the roof on a house) out of our eye so we can see clearly before we try and get the mote (a small speck) out of our brothers eye. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God every day! If you study what scripture has to say and start to apply it to your life and people see that it works they will start to watch and see what it is that is different about you. Introduce them to the scriptures and let God do the work in their lives. You can't change them only a personal relationship with him can. I have many friends that are gay, overweight, that curse....ect. I still love them and they respect my convictions. Do I preach at them and Judge them .......I have no right to ....but if they ask me what scripture has to say about things I know where to point them. The bible says Judge not least ye be judged with the same measure. I know I could stand against my own judgment so I'll just hold off on that. If it's wrong in Gods eyes is the important thing for me personally to deal with when I make decisions for my life....I can't make your mind up nor can I change night to day or day to night. - Live your faith and if your a Christian show the world Christ in your life.
Show the world unconditional love..................

The "rights" of the people are not up to the government or to any religion or group. The rights of the individual are just that; THEIRS, and THEIRS alone. The fact that government and "religious" groups try to stick their nose into the tent of INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY, and HAPPINESS is something that needs to be stopped once and for all time. It is not up to the government to tell us how to live every segment of our lives or up to any "religion", either.

I thought that California already provides all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through a domestic-partnership status.

The only things gays want is the social status associated with marriage.

America is nutty and turning fruitier & fruitier.

Looking at our country's founding with 20th century glasses is foolish.

This is a social issue being decided by our esteemed court Jesters who seem to be content in the belief that they know what is better for America than the populace, legislative due process & common sense.

Pure rubbish.

There are plenty of scriptures in God's Holy Word that are againt the sin of homosexuality ie "Man shall not lay with Man" also look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah which was ravaged with homosexuality.

This decision should be reversed. It's a travesty. I have gay friends and I accept them because they are human beings. However, this belittles my marriage to a woman. Obviously, not everyone believes in God. As someone named 'Jamie' said here, "Marriage was, is, and has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. This is the exact definition that the Founding Fathers of this country recognized and accepted as truth." Why do we need to change that? Are we so arrogant?

We as a society, in our foolish arrogance, continue to smear morality and excuse it with the word 'freedom'. There is a sect of pedophiles in America. They wish to mainstream their idea of sexuality. Should we accept their exploits in the name of freedom? Will we one day be called prejudiced because we don't approve of them? Will we one day be asked to accept marriage to children by adults?

I believe it will offend God when gay people include Him in their marriage ceremonies. The very thought offends me to the core. I believe the God of the universe designed marriage and we mere humans should not mess with that.

First that was a brillant article thank you.

Secondaly my partner Nate and I have been together monogamous since the beginning for just about 12 years now. He is 30 and I am 37 and we are paying for a home and property, city and state taxes that support children of heterosexuals. I never hear a bit of those against gay marriage or gay anything complain about the funds they benefit from not to mention the section 8 depedants.

We don't even care if what we have should be called marriage we just want to be treated as equals with the exact same rights, privileges and headaches as heterosexuals.

I have more southern bapist ministers in my family than carter has liver pills and not a single one agrees that the church has any business in laws outside of it's own establishment.

LOR-- the legal age of consent in Canada is 12!!
so yes bringing in the issue of adults marrying children etc is legitimate.And for all of you who think it is only Christians who take a stand on the traditional definition of marriage your wrong --Muslims,Jews etc do also.And history shows it to be the only viable definition!!--NOTE THERE IS NO RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WITHOUT THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE OUR SPECIES DOES
NOT SURVIVE !!

Those who say "gays are not hurting anybody" are very wrong. Arnold Schwarzzenegger just passed a law last year that prohibits a parent from making the statement that a human being is born male or female in the presence of a school teacher. It basically tries to mandate the opinion that gender is something people make up! Children in public schools are now allowed to use whatever bathroom/dressing room they "identify with". That means that a biological male (there's no disputing what that means, no matter what anyone says) can walk into the "FEMALE BATHROOM" (maybe that doesn't mean anything anymore, if there's no such thing as gender) and do his business there, or change in the female locker room with the females. This is harmful to everyone, including my own children. Contrary to the argument made by those who support gay-rights, gay people do hurt others.

Claire's jab about one person's "progress" being abomination to others has been used as an excuse to deviate from time-tested values throughout the history of liberal thought. The French revolution, one of the biggest debacles in modern history, was done in the name of "progress", to the point that they threw out history all together and officially started their calendar ay the year "1". I know that the day will come when we or some other nation who's smarter than we are being will look back on us with the same kind of contempt that we look at the French revolution with. We're being real idiots here.

Like the Mullahs in Tehran, the Judges in California tell us what the Law is from on high adn treat with contempt the voters who have made themselves clear.

When I cam called form Jury Duty I will ask what laws the judge wants me to to enforce and which ones he will let me to make up my own mind about if is a Law I agree with or not.

The Judges place in question the whole idea of democracy, and replace it with Judges like those of dictatorships.

We can recall the Judges like was done with Rose Bird, no need to chop off their heads like the punishments in Iran, but once we loose the rule of law anything is possilble under revolutionary Justice

I am a born and bred Californian whose best friend is a gay man. I am also Catholic and while I may be called a heretic for going against God's word, our country was founded on the premise that Church and State be separate. What happens behinds the closed doors of my best friend is none of my business, just as it none of his business what happens behind mine. Way to stand up and defend the equal rights of EVERYONE California! I am so proud!

There are plenty of scriptures in God's Holy Word that are againt the sin of homosexuality ie "Man shall not lay with Man" also look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah which was ravaged with homosexuality.

Whether or not one believes in God, nature teaches conclusively that what is normal is the bonding (mating) of opposite sexes.

Going against nature is simply un-nature (unnatural). Pointing to the few that acted contrary to this in nature goes toward the exception, not the rule.

On a non-biblical standpoint, it is clear that man was not designed physically to join with another man, nor a woman to another woman. What one 'feels' towards another of the same sex does not in itself argue that it is natural to join the two.

Feelings contrary to what is natural may or may not be due to something biological (hormonal imbalances, psychological, social upbringing, etc), but should not dictate what is right or wrong. Feelings are emotional-based, something that often runs counter to logic-based.

Logic and reason is that a Man is physically complimented by a Woman, and the two can reproduce. They make better parents as a whole, because they each bring both sides of the equation to better provide a well-rounded environment to a child.

Same-sex mating cannot reproduce. In fact, and never discussed, the mating is make-shift (unnatural) because the equipment is wrong!

How anyone can ignore this simple and basic fact of nature (religious or not) is beyond me.

This California ruling is just another example of how the morality and sensibility of groups can be watered down over time in favor of 'doing whatever you want'. A single word describes exactly what that means..."Godless". Yes, the world is becoming more and more "Godless", whether or not there is a God.

Well, whatever your belief. Please don't forget that those of us who have committed relationships try very hard to keep them. My partner and I are separated by the US. He is Mexican, I am American. This gets us a step closer to being together legally.
All we want is to live together happily.

Why don't we change the way marriage works here in the states. Lets make it a "Contract" between to people.

Every seven years the contract expires and the "Couple" can choose to renew the contact or let it expire. This would cut down on the divorce rates and create more jobs in the process. Just think of all the lawyers, tax accountants, wedding planners, etc. that would be needed to maintain this system..LOL

Everyone keeps getting hung up on the words that are being used.

Language is nothing more than an agreed upon definition for a particular term. Language changes like everything else on this planet - just look at the word gay for a perfect example; used to mean just happy. Then it got applied to a group of people, and now it means homosexual.

Marriage as a word only has power because it's been officially recognized in so many public documents and rights and responsibilities have been identified by it.

But since it HAS been officially recognized, it should apply across the board to any pairing of people who wish to partake of the benefits and share the responsibilities.

To refute the most common arguments:

1) Marriage is sacred - since when? Marriage is a contract & always has been - there's nothing sacred about it; evidence: Las Vegas & celebrity weddings. The biggest threat to marriage isn't gays, it's divorce.

2) God says it's bad - according to who? The Bible? Here's a bit of trivia for you bible thumpers: it's a flawed book. Want proof? Book of Matthew, Jesus goes to John the Baptist and John says "I'm not worthy to baptize you, it is you who should baptize me." After he baptizes him, the Spirit of God descends like a dove. Pretty story, nice fairy tale. Book of John, Chapter 1, verse 37, John the Baptist says that he wouldn't have known who Jesus was except that he'd been told it would be the one upon whom he saw the Spirit descend. So if the Spirit descends *after* the baptism, why does John think he's unworthy to baptize Jesus *before* the baptism? Good luck rationalizing that one away.

3) Tradition & Culture - this is a blatant excuse for bigotry. History is full of traditions and culture that are outdated and flat out unethical and wrong; example: human sacrifice, witch burnings, torture, etc. "it's not the way it's always been done" is a lousy excuse. Just because we always condoned slavery didn't make it right.

Probably the best idea to resolve this whole nonsensical issue is one that I read awhile back: remove the government recognition of what has become a religious subject. Everyone gets a civil union if they want government benefits - gays & straights both. You want to get married and sanctified go see your pastor - you want tax filings and legal inheritance made easy you go see the county clerk.

Well it looks like we could all use a little enlightening ....Christian and Non Christian a like. "It is what it is!" It really don't matter how we see it if there is a God in heaven and I feel sure there is - what matters is how he views it.....If he made us- it's His rules. Can the creation rule over the creator...I think not.
Let's step back just a sec. One of the other folks wrote that it was a bunch of crap to say “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Well my Bible teaches just that....... It says we are all sinners and there is no greater or lessor sin in the eyes of God, except one and that's blasphemy against the Holy ghost! So with that out of the way - we now know we are all sinners! Christ died as a atonement for all our sins and it is written that it is Gods will that none of us be lost. Then we also need to look a little further into scripture.... we are all sinners and it says we should get the beam (like to hole up the roof on a house) out of our eye so we can see clearly before we try and get the mote (a small speck) out of our brothers eye. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God every day! If you study what scripture has to say and start to apply it to your life and people see that it works they will start to watch and see what it is that is different about you. Introduce them to the scriptures and let God do the work in their lives. You can't change them only a personal relationship with him can. I have many friends that are gay, overweight, that curse....ect. I still love them and they respect my convictions. Do I preach at them and Judge them .......I have no right to ....but if they ask me what scripture has to say about things I know where to point them. The bible says Judge not least ye be judged with the same measure. I know I couldn't stand against my own judgment so I'll just hold off on that. If it's wrong in Gods eyes is the important thing for me personally to deal with when I make decisions for my life....I can't make your mind up nor can I change night to day or day to night. - Live your faith and if your a Christian show the world Christ in your life.
Show the world unconditional love..................

Next time I abandon my natural relations for men, I'll let you know.... In the mean time, I'll stick to living my life the way God made me: gay.

I'm morally against homosexuality. Keep in mind I'm referring to the act, and not the individual. I cannot ethically support any piece of legislation that supports it.

The sad thing about this debate is that there is none. Those against homosexual marriage claim that anyone for it is anti-God, and those for homosexual marriage claim that any one against it is a bigot.

The entire issue is morally based. Just as a religious person cannot logically argue against it, a homosexual cannot logically argue for it. So vote on your own moral view, and lets do whatever the people decide.

Interesting that people here claim that the United States was founded on Christian principles. As a religious person myself, let me share with the self-righteous lot of born-again Christians who think that America is the greatest country on earth (even though I suppose they have never left the country and seen for themselves that America is better than anyone else).

Back in the garden of Eden, Eve chose to decide for herself what was good and bad. Adam later joined her. They decided that it was better to decide what was right than listen to God's law (which, by the way, was to their benefit). In a sense, Adam and Eve thus became the first democrats - in the sense that they established the first democracy or rule of the people. Their punishment for deciding for themselves what was right was their eventual death. So how can any right-minded Christian (who according to Jesus should be no part of the world anyway) think that God is somehow blessing the United States when they are merely following the "principle" of the first human sinners?

Additionally, homosexuality according to the Bible is a sin. Jesus did not confirm as much because his life was spent preaching to Jews who already knew from the Mosaic Law that homosexuality was immoral, as was premarital sex, adultery, and stealing. It wasn't necessary for Jesus to reiterate even aspect of the Law code, just straighten them out on specifics. For the record, the apostle Paul did reiterate what the Law covenant said, even though Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law. Regardless, God says in Malachi that he does not change. Therefore, what was wrong in his eyes is wrong today!

This brings up an important question for professed Christians today: If premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, stealing, drunkenness, lying, involvement with politics, and the rest were all condemned by God back then, what makes you think that any of those things are appropriate right now? Many professed Christians have no qualms about having sex outside of marriage or telling a lie or even getting drunk on occasion, yet when it comes to homosexuality, they are quick to condemn. Hypocrites!

Perhaps if you remember the vital truth that the whole world is lying in the power of the Devil (1 John 5:19), then you will realize that trying to change anything in the current system is like polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

Oh yeah, the saying that "democracy is God's gift to mankind" was uttered by the slave-owning fornicator Thomas Jefferson, and it is nowhere to be found in Scripture! Just a little heads-up for when your churches decide to endorse political candidates...

Society's values and rules evolve--always have and always will! I think most of us agree that this is a good thing. Marriage has evolved too... Marriage used to be mostly about property rights and controlling women.

This is the way it always has been is not a good enough argument. Women used to not be able to vote; that changed. Blacks were not allowed to attend the same schools as whites, and were slaves in this country. Not a society I would be proud of, but I am proud that our society evolved and will continue to evolve!

Marriage as a religious institution is not required to change. However, when you attach federal and state benefits to marriage--it is no longer about religion, it is about civil rights. And yes, there are many religions were same-sex marriages are supported and encouraged. If you were REALLY worried about what the bible says, you would be protesting divorce, adultery, and other "abominations". Where are the divorce protests?

What two consenting people do behind closed doors without a victim is nobody's business. For "Christians" who aren't supposed to judge, I see a lot of judgmental comments here. That's not your business, it is between the powers of heaven and the respective individuals.

Do you really think that banning same-sex marriage is going to make homosexuality go away? Come on, wake up. It just makes hurtful situations (think of the former NJ governor's family) There has always been homosexuality in every society of the world--it is just a difference of how humane people treat each other. It was accepted in Native american societies and yet people are killed every day in the middle east today because of their sexuality. If i were to wager bets, I suspect judgement day is going to be a bit harsher on those who murder innocent folks.

Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Spain all have same-sex marriage and yet opposite-sex marriages are still alive and strong without any threat.

I'm proud to be a Californian and proud that society is enlightening and evolving for the better.

MASSACHUSETTS - Gay marriage on the books for four years now. Still has the lowest divorce rate in the country and is near the top in economic prosperity besides. OKLAHOMA - One of the most conservative states. Meth addiction rampant. Gay marriage probably not likely in our lifetimes. Has the country's highest divorce rate. Go figure.

I agree with what was said in the article, except that those religious types who think it's wrong to be gay should be tolerated in our society at all. It's a telling comment, the zealot above who expressed his disgust and sick feelings he experiences when he considers homosexuality. These people are brainwashed from birth to repress feelings of sexuality, and unable to deal with them, those feelings manifest as repulsion, dark rage, and ultimately violence. He seems to revel in his own disgust, in his own shame. We can't let these religious people be around our children. That sickness, that inner hate experienced by the Christian, directed inwards as a reaction to their own feelings of sexual guilt, now that's the real disease. And it will spread to the minds of the innocent. Let's go no further to appease these dark priests, who cannot help but molest the minds of our children as they've been molested, if not their bodies.

CHRIS: "Also, there's strong evidence supporting that gays are usually those that have had a traumatizing past to some degree. Put those two together to raise a child, and the probability of not raising one correcly increases (I'm simply stating common sense)."

No you aren't, you're making up believable-sounding lies that are both despicable and easily disproven. Every study done in the past several decades clearly demonstrates that kids raised by straight vs. gay parents have equal chances of success and failure. Stop wrapping bigotry in "common sense" clothing.

It's a public acknowledgement/approval that you are asking for, not a "private" acknowledgement/approval (i.e. "this is a privacy issue"). If people generally want to be privately homosexual, more power to them, that's between them and God. But if they want my public government (of the people, by the people, for the people) to openly acknowledge and approve of homosexuality, then that is not "privacy". That's coercion of good people, forcing good people to acknowledge homosexual marriage and provide formal approval of evil.

These things have nothing to do with God's love. God loves everyone! And so should we. Period. But God's love does not un-define evil. God does not love evil deeds. One day everyone will understand this. I hope it will not be too late when you do.

Do you believe in evolution? Yes? Do you really think gay relationships are the next step in evolution? If so, be prepared to be extinct.

Do you believe in the Christian God? Yes? Great. Follow his teaching, and everything will be fine in the end. Don't follow his teaching and...be prepared to be extinct.

I feel that people miss the point on this. The state issues a marriage license. This grants legal rights to the couple. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Being religiously married doesn't require a marriage license, if the couple truly follow their faith. It will just not be legally recognized by the state.

Not granting legal rights to some couples and granting them to others based on sexual preference is unconstitutional. It is no different than denying marriage to couples based on race.

Wow - I agree with the center argument with of the Minister below, which is kind of interesting because I don't believe in God or sin.

He is right that marriage should not be included in the legal realm - it is absolutely a private matter and it does not make any sense for a secular nation to have its government regulate love relationships.

Interesting that people here claim that the United States was founded on Christian principles. As a religious person myself, let me share with the self-righteous lot of born-again Christians who think that America is the greatest country on earth (even though I suppose they have never left the country and seen for themselves that America is better than anyone else).

Back in the garden of Eden, Eve chose to decide for herself what was good and bad. Adam later joined her. They decided that it was better to decide what was right than listen to God's law (which, by the way, was to their benefit). In a sense, Adam and Eve thus became the first democrats - in the sense that they established the first democracy or rule of the people. Their punishment for deciding for themselves what was right was their eventual death. So how can any right-minded Christian (who according to Jesus should be no part of the world anyway) think that God is somehow blessing the United States when they are merely following the "principle" of the first human sinners?

Additionally, homosexuality according to the Bible is a sin. Jesus did not confirm as much because his life was spent preaching to Jews who already knew from the Mosaic Law that homosexuality was immoral, as was premarital sex, adultery, and stealing. It wasn't necessary for Jesus to reiterate even aspect of the Law code, just straighten them out on specifics. For the record, the apostle Paul did reiterate what the Law covenant said, even though Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law. Regardless, God says in Malachi that he does not change. Therefore, what was wrong in his eyes is wrong today!

This brings up an important question for professed Christians today: If premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, stealing, drunkenness, lying, involvement with politics, and the rest were all condemned by God back then, what makes you think that any of those things are appropriate right now? Many professed Christians have no qualms about having sex outside of marriage or telling a lie or even getting drunk on occasion, yet when it comes to homosexuality, they are quick to condemn. Hypocrites!

Perhaps if you remember the vital truth that the whole world is lying in the power of the Devil (1 John 5:19), then you will realize that trying to change anything in the current system is like polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

Oh yeah, the saying that "democracy is God's gift to mankind" was uttered by the slave-owning fornicator Thomas Jefferson, and it is nowhere to be found in Scripture! Just a little heads-up for when your churches decide to endorse political candidates...

Next time I abandon my natural relations for men, I'll let you know.... In the mean time, I'll stick to living my life the way God made me: gay.

Dear against Gay marriage:

I believe that you misunderstand the issue. Nowhere in the decision does the court rule that churches are required to marry anybody they don't want to marry. Churches are free to decline to marry anybody they choose. Always has been always will be. We have freedom of religion here so you are free to read tea leaves till your blue in the face. Or not if that is your wish.

Unfortunately, the vast vast vast majority of religious people believe that that freedom of religion means that everybody is free to practice *their* religion and that it does not mean that people are free to practice another religion or and here comes the real big one so get ready for the shocker of a lifetime... NO RELIGION AT ALL. Yes, believe it or not, people here have the right to be free from the religious constraints of your blind faith.

You can define marriage in your church however you want. That has no impact on how the government defines marriage as the legal partnership between two people, (which is exactly what is is).

Take me for example. I'm married. Yes to a woman. We were married by the Mayor of our town in a park, not by or sanctioned by a church. We do not believe in your god. Because you seem to argue that marriage is a religious term only. I suppose you would say our marriage is worth less than yours or perhaps worth nothing at all. I suppose I would respond by telling you where you can stick that.

Josh --

This is not godly nation as you put it or in other words, an oligarchy. It is a secular democratic country. Dont like it... move to iran.

Everyone, try to be open minded, I am an Muslim, and in Islam it isn't allowed to have same sex marriage. But you out to understand, this is a marriage of contract, not a religious ruling; what it mean is that these people are committing a sin, out they married or not, and if that is the case does it matter if we allowed them to have a court marriage or not? So if it don't matter, why we out to stick out our finger? Religion has no base in the USA, its a country under God, but the God is not the one we are brought up to believe, The God is the Constitution of the USA. If The Constitution allow it its legal. Lets,all just get down with it and move one with our lives. God (the Constitution) has blessed gay marriage, so do I. if you out to confront this issue, leave to a country which is out to be believe in the sole religion of yours. Thanks

Michael said:

"When you get down to it its pretty simple. without a man and a women union there can be no children, without children mankind is finished. Yes I know there are other ways, but the children of gay parents can never be biologically tied to both parents, which seems strange. I may be old fashioned but I look at the animal kingdome from which we suposidly came from and see how they continue the survival of their species."

With a human population that increases at over 200,000 people per day, are we in any danger of extinction?

There are plenty of scriptures in God's Holy Word that are againt the sin of homosexuality ie "Man shall not lay with Man" also look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah which was ravaged with homosexuality.

The problem with claiming god on your or anyone's side, is that you don't have to get consent from god. All you need is a piece of paper, proclaim it holy, and you have created a snake satisfactorily nibbling its own tail. Meanwhile, the real god is left outside the picture.

Your god and my god (your gods and my gods) are not at war, not in conflict. Yet using god's name idly, as in for your defense and then facilely not for my or other people's defense, shows a belief in a false god, and not the real god.

We are created in the image of god. Please check your belief to see if you have created a god in your image instead.

Next time I abandon my natural relations for men, I'll let you know.... In the mean time, I'll stick to living my life the way God made me: gay.

Well it looks like we could all use a little enlightening ....Christian and Non Christian a like. "It is what it is!" It really don't matter how we see it if there is a God in heaven and I feel sure there is - what matters is how he views it.....If he made us- it's His rules. Can the creation rule over the creator...I think not.
Let's step back just a sec. One of the other folks wrote that it was a bunch of crap to say “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Well my Bible teaches just that....... It says we are all sinners and there is no greater or lessor sin in the eyes of God, except one and that's blasphemy against the Holy ghost! So with that out of the way - we now know we are all sinners! Christ died as a atonement for all our sins and it is written that it is Gods will that none of us be lost. Then we also need to look a little further into scripture.... we are all sinners and it says we should get the beam (like to hole up the roof on a house) out of our eye so we can see clearly before we try and get the mote (a small speck) out of our brothers eye. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God every day! If you study what scripture has to say and start to apply it to your life and people see that it works they will start to watch and see what it is that is different about you. Introduce them to the scriptures and let God do the work in their lives. You can't change them only a personal relationship with him can. I have many friends that are gay, overweight, that curse....ect. I still love them and they respect my convictions. Do I preach at them and Judge them .......I have no right to ....but if they ask me what scripture has to say about things I