Gay people will ruin the sanctity of marriage.
Right. Why is there no constitutional amendment being proposed to ban divorce? Adultery? Why are there no protests against domestic abuse? Britney Spears? Marriage is so incredibly sacred... yet for decades it was used to enslave women, young girls even, and other times simply to keep or acquire property. Hmm... sounds really sacred.
This is a war on Christianity. This country's getting away from the Christian morals it was built on.
Most of the "Christian" morals people refer to that this country was built on are morals included in most other religions, and that the majority of people who aren't religious at all tend to have as well. This argument that our country needs Christianity to survive because the children need morals doesn't make any sense. Religion and morality are not symbiotic. You don't need to have any kind of religion to be a moral person. I don't need a book of metaphorical stories and random rules to tell me what is good and what is bad. You can teach your kids to be kind, compassionate, honest, to have integrity, to be disciplined and hard-working, to be grateful, without any book of Bible stories.
Most people in America are opposed to gay marriage.
You're right. But since when has "it's popular" been a reason to write something into law? People could use that same argument to have justified slavery. Does that make it right? We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Meaning the people themselves do not make decisions on public policy. The people elect informed, educated (well, we hope) officials who then make those decisions. And all we can do is hope that they make decisions that are in the best interests of the American people. Does that mean that we must agree with every thing they do? No. Sometimes politicians (good ones, anyway) will make hard decisions that are right, but not necessarily popular. I'm sure many people would love to stop paying taxes. But that doesn't mean we should write that into law.
Well if you do want to get gay marriage legalized, why be deceitful and do it through the courts? At least do it through legitimate legislation.
I'm so lost here. Do these people know anything about the system of checks and balances? You do know we have three branches of government, right? And each of them has a way to keep the others in check. One of those ways for the judicial system is judicial review. It's implied in the Constitution, but was really set in stone in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Challenging a law with a lawsuit and bringing it to the courts is not, nor has it ever been, an "illegal" way of changing a law. Opponents of gay marriage are just angry at what they call "activist judges" for overturning the bans on gay marriage because they know that the law is not on their side.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - chantal stone
Of all the "gay marriage" articles on BC right now, this one gets my vote for the best one yet for addressing the REAL issue at hand: "Well, what is wrong with being gay in the first place?"
Well, done Chris, sadly, too many people still don't get it.
2 - Chris Evans
Thanks, Chantal.
Maybe someday people will finally get it.
3 - Jet in Columbus
Open minds will love this article, closed minds won't read it, or will and deride it... I loved it.
Click on my URL Chris, you might like my site.
Solus mei sententia
Jet
4 - Chris Evans
You're probably right Jet. I've got my boxing gloves on--I know they're coming for me soon.
5 - Arch Conservative
"Open minds will love this article, closed minds won't read it, or will and deride it... I loved it.
"
Riiiiiiiight.......
If you're open minded you're for gay marriage and you're closed minded if you're against it.
HOw insightful, novel, and thought provoking.
NOthing new to see here. Smae old, same old,
6 - Chris Evans
I love how instead of actually refuting anything in the article you just dismiss it.
And second...please tell me you have a serious argument for how in hell you could possibly consider someone who's against gay rights is "open minded"
7 - O'B
Excellent journalistic commentary. Teen-tiny suggestion from "old" writer -- well ouside basic content. Even teeny-tiny cliches draw away from word power. Maybe "get over" mundane "Get over it?"
Otherwise, worthy of a major paper.
Thanks.
8 - Mark Latta
Well done! Thank you.
9 - Jon Fowler
What a great article! I do not understand how any intelligent person can deny anyone the same rights as others.
"Why is there no constitutional amendment being proposed to ban divorce? Adultery? Why are there no protests against domestic abuse? Britney Spears? Marriage is so incredibly sacred...yet for decades it was used to enslave women, young girls even, and other times simply to keep or acquire property. Hmm...sounds really sacred."
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make towards people, because the argument I hear the most is about the sanctity of marriage. What is marriage in the end? It's a legal contract between two people. So by banning gay marriage you're saying they aren't people?
Anyways, it was a great article Chris
10 - Stew
"Open minds will love this article, closed minds won't read it, or will and deride it... I loved it."
"NOthing new to see here. Smae old, same old,"
Point proven? and, BTW, great article.
11 - Joshua Drake
Take out the word Marriage and replace it with the term Civil Union and I am 100% behind you.
Marriage and has always been defined, regardless of Christianity (check any religion) as between a Man and Woman.
Asking that traditional Married couples except same sex couples as Married is a slap to the tradition.
Understand, that I have nothing against 100% equal rights for gay people but allow them their own ceremony with their own title, do not infringe on the sanctity of Marriage.
12 - Chad
Quote: Marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. Says who? Christianity? /Quote.
It is correct that Marriage is between a man and a woman and nothing else and it has nothing to do with Christianity. Besides the fact that the other major religions, Islam and Judaism also agree, is the fact the the concept of marriage as it has come down since the cavemen was done for social stability by providing a stable home and source of resources for the raising of children. That is why people got married throughout time, societally speaking. It provided for the raising of children in a stable environment. The man went out and hunted the meat and protected the family (and tribe) in war, while the woman raised the children, farmed, and took care of the household. The government today protects marriage and gives special benefits for the same reason. It is in the government's best interest to provide a stable society for the raising of children. Marriage and stable families is the foundation of a stable society. So-called "Gay Marriage" does not provide for either.
Take a look at the existing primitive societies -- none of them have Gay Marriage. Look at societal evolution throughout the ages -- Gay Marriage has never been a factor in any society until now. Why? Because Gay Marriage does nothing to provide a stable society and a stable family life for raising Children -- things that society has found to be beneficial in the advancement of the society. I have nothing personally against Gays and have some Gay friends, but so-called Gay Marriage makes no sense. It brings nothing to society and it does destroy the special nature of marriage by bringing them emphasis away from stable family and children, the foundation of any stable society.
13 - Jet in Columbus
ArchBoingBat, you're so cute when you have nothing to say... Shouldn't you be in church?
14 - sungoddess
"Marriage is so incredibly sacred...yet for decades it was used to enslave women, young girls even, and other times simply to keep or acquire property."
I believe it was centuries upon centuries, not mere decades. Female oppressions was not invented in the 20th century.
Nice piece though, with some solid astute points.
15 - Xenophon
Take the time to read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The full version (700 pages), not the abridged. You are assuming documents (e.g. the Constitution) will supercede culture. Religion has a surprising and important role in the U.S. that liberals frequently miss.
16 - Jet in Columbus
Chad you're so full of it, homosexuality is very common throughout the animal kingdom and you know it, now go back and pound your bible some more.
As with BoingBat, shouldn't you be in church?
17 - Jon Fowler
"...allow them their own ceremony with their own title, do not infringe on the sanctity of Marriage."
Seperate but Equal? I remember something like this from before.
18 - Chris Evans
What makes gay families "unstable", Chad? And why is it that people think of gays as these horrid little street mongrels that do drugs and engage in sexual acts in back alleys? You don't think there are normal, wholesome families with gay parents? Don't you think those children deserve to know their parents have committed their lives to each other?
19 - Joe Scavo
Chris;
when you've had a few more years on the planet you may understand that certain societal values are worth preserving, such as marriage (like the one your parents had....maybe it wasnt a good one, but don't blame the rest of us for that),or your gay, in which case your entire outlook is already prejudiced. Why should less that 20% of the adult population have the right to change something that the other 80% want to preserve?
20 - Jet in Columbus
Joe #20 in that case since 67 percent of the American public disaprove of Bush, we should immediagely throw him out of office? That's why.
21 - Jon Fowler
"Why should less that 20% of the adult population have the right to change something that the other 80% want to preserve?"
Rights for the majority, none for the minority?
22 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Don't worry too much, Mr. Evans. As you most astutely pointed out in your well-written article, there are no valid arguments that can be made against the civil recognition of same-sex marriage.
Read some of the court decisions. Words like "suspect" and "arbitrary" are used to describe the contrived arguments of the opponents of marriage equality -- and by some conservative judges who obviously tried very hard to see things their way.
The two main non-religious arguments -- opponents are familiar with the First Amendment, even if they do not like the way it makes their religious beliefs equal to all other faiths, and thus prudently avoid using religious arguments when formally debating the issue in the secular public square -- are that homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce and that marriage has been a traditionally heterosexual institution for many years.
Of course, both positions are, at best, very weak, but, realistically speaking, pragmatically and constitutionally untenable, which is why opponents are currently racing -- and falling far behind, BTW -- to get the Federal Marriage Amendment ratified before the issue reaches the courts who will inevitably have to recognize that gay and lesbian people do indeed have the right to civil marriage.
23 - Chris Evans
Joe, your argument, once again, could be applied to racial segregation and discrimination. The law is supposed to be designed to protect the minority from the majority.
As to my age, yes, I'm young. But I like to think of my youth as an advantage in ideology rather than an obstacle. The older you get, the more your mind tends to settle for what is there, as opposed to trying to make things change.
24 - Jet in Columbus
Well Chris, it looks like I pegged it in comment 3 didn't I?
Solus mei sententia
Jet
25 - Stew
Two of my sons friends in first grade have same sex parents. Gay Marriage (here in MA) has allowed them the 'stability' to raise their children. Chad, why would you deny them that?