Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Case Against Gay Marriage

The Case Against Gay Marriage

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From MSNBC:
In San Francisco, longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married just before noon local time by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor’s spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one.

One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.

Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.

“Why shouldn’t we” be able to marry? Lyon asked.

Well, it looks like the sky is falling. Lesbians and gays can marry. The World is ending. As I remove my tongue from my cheek, I want to say this: Don’t get me wrong. I think gay and lesbian couples should share many of the same benefits heterosexual couples share. They should be able to have hospital visitation rights and other legal rights much like the commonlaw marriages had before many states outlawed them.

But I draw the line at “Marriage”. Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Though it could be considered “discrimination” to not allow homosexual couples to marry, you have to draw the line somewhere. If the line is moved for gay couples, where is the end? Will we allow men to marry multiple wives? Wives to marry multiple husbands? Adults marrying children?

A line has got to be drawn somewhere. As much I as I believe in the Second Amendment, I think a line has to be drawn at flame throwers and missle launchers A literal reading of that amendment can be interpreted as saying that the “Right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Not be infringed means NOT BE INFRINGED!!

Common sense dictates that you have to draw a line. Pure constitutionalist libertarians will say though that any laws are an infringement on rights. That is the same argument gay marriage activists use to push for gay marriage. They say that the Constitution should not discriminate.

But the reason for existing laws limiting marriage to same-sex couples is because of morality. Plain and simple. Agree with it or not, morality is the reason. To move the morality line to include homosexuals but not polygamy or polyandry, or beastiality, or pedophilia you are asking for trouble.

A moral line has to be drawn somewhere. The logical point is a line which rewards behavior which will promote the growth of the human animal. Since children can only come naturally by traditional coupling of men and women, it seems like the logical place to limit the definition of marriage.

For more right-thinking reading, visit The Nap Room

Powered by

About Tom Bux

  • http://coldforged.org ColdForged

    Ah yes, compare consensual relationships with bestiality and pedophilia. Exceedingly germaine.

    Since children can only come naturally by traditional coupling of men and women, it seems like the logical place to limit the definition of marriage.

    I’ll be sure to tell my childless married friends that they’re breaking “logical bounds” by not having children.

    The simple fact is that the primarily Christian right doesn’t want their institution “sullied” by a modified definition of marriage. Period. Everything else is hand-waving.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Don’t you see the slippery slope though, by allowing gay marriage on the grounds that the constitution should not discriminate any sort of marriage?

    you will have Polyanderers and Polygamists looking to marry multiple partners. After all, they are all consenting adults, and all love each other.

    A line has got to be drawn somewhere. Think logically about it, and remove your bleeding heart from the equation.

  • Joel Jambon

    Since children can only come naturally by traditional coupling of men and women, it seems like the logical place to limit the definition of marriage is preventing STERILE HETEROSEXUALS from marrying.

    That’s your logic, right? So why isn’t this prohibited?

    Joel

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    If marriage has to be between consenting adults, and two people only, why would there be a slippery slope? And, yes, I know about the case in which the polygamist tried to use the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas sodomy case to his advantage. I blogged that. But, that was just grasping at straws. I don’t believe people would confuse a married gay couple with some guy who assembles a group of women and ‘marries’ them all. One example fits the definition of marriage once one gets past gender. The other does not.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    But if you allow marriage between consenting adults of the same sex, who says that it can’t between more than two consenting adults?

    And Joel: Children can only naturallly come between a woman and a man. If a pathology gets in the way of a man and a woman having kids, they shouldn’t be punished for that.

    Though I also believe the best reaffirmation of marriage is that same sex couples want to marry, a line has to be drawn somewhere. If the reason for disallowing same sex couples from marrying are shown unconsitutional so then should the laws that disallow multiple wives and husbands.

    A line has to be drawn somewhere.

  • http://coldforged.org ColdForged

    You know what, let’s get wild. I don’t even see the enormous problem with polygamy and polyandry to tell the truth. If everyone involved agrees to the arrangement, why not?

    Do I think that they should reap additional monetary and other social benefits compared to traditional married couples? Nope. Do I know how to work such an arrangement out fairly in terms of those social benefits? Nope.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Well that’s fine, if you think polygamy or Polyandry is ok, than you are being consistent.

  • http://www.jackejett.com jack e. jett

    as a gay man in a committed relationship for 10 years, i have little interest in gay marriage or gay divorce. that is just me. i do think as long as i pay taxes, i SHOULD be allowed to do what any other taxpayer is allowed. now, if the government wants to give me a tax credit in lieu of marriage, i am fine with that. at this point in my life, i not sure a shinning example of “the sanctity of marriage” has been set my the heterosexual, bisexual, or gay community.
    comparing it to pedophiles or bestiality is nothing more that extreme right wing, holier than thou, christian bullshit. i mean let’s call a spade a spade.

    jack e. jett

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    You are catching on, Jack.

    A difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that the latter imposes very high costs on the societal purse. Since the parents can’t support all those offspring, those families, mainly in Utah and border states, are fed, clothed and housed by the government. And, studies of polygamy show lasting psychological harm to the women involved. Often, they are yanked out of their homes at 14 or 15 and married off to much older male relatives or friends of their fathers. Their lives are not their own.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Why are you making that decision for them Mac, That seems bigoted agaist people who want multiple spouses. It’s not your place to decide if they can marry or not.

    Why are you pushing your morality on them. They love each other, and the constitution does not allow for discrimination.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    *rolls eyes*

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I’m not imposing my morality on them. I don’t see any real harm to society from gay marriage. I do seem real harm from polygamy. That is how I’m reaching my decision.

    Anyway, I just snagged the evening paper and it is official: The gay marriage compromise has failed.

  • Shark

    Gay marriage is the biggest SMOKE-SCREEN the Right has trotted out in recent history.

    And that’s saying something.

    Hi, America, it’s SHOWTIME, I mean..um… election time! Trot out the pedophi… um, I mean, gays.

    You like man on man? How about man on CHILD?

    How about man on chihuahua?

    How about man on CHILD CHIHUAHUA? Huh? Like that slippery slope, do ya?

    Like granny on granny? How about granny on GRANNIES? What if, thanks to a bankrupt Social Security, 40 or 50 grannies decide to get married and move in together? Huh?

    What about the children? What about the grandchildren? Are they gonna be SCREWED up or WHAT?

    40 ol’ grannies lived in a shoe…

    And what if that shoe was NEXT DOOR to your gated community?

    Guess what, America: “Sanctity of marriage” will be repeated until your ears bleed; then you’ll fall into a zombie coma, reach for your wallet, and donate to the Republican Commitee for the Preservation of the Sanctity of Marriage.

    Never mind that the Chairman is on his third marriage.

    “…sanctity… sanctity… slippery… slopey… yer getting sleepy…”

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t see a slippery slope: two consenting adults, period. Not three, not four, not children, not lower life forms. There is the line.

    And it isn’t about morality, it’s about religion. In a legally secular society, I don’t see how you can deny civil gay marriage, nor why you (nonspecific plural) would want to.

  • Shark

    BUX SPEECH 100 YEARS AGO:

    “Don’t get me wrong. I think a black and white couple should share many of the same benefits white couples share.

    They should be able to have hospital visitation rights and other legal rights much like the commonlaw marriages had before many states outlawed them.

    But I draw the line at “Marriage”. Marriage should be reserved for a white and a white or a black and a black.

    Though it could be considered “discrimination” to not allow mixed race couples to marry, you have to draw the line somewhere. If the line is moved for mixed race couples, where is the end?

    Will we allow men to marry multiple wives? Wives to marry multiple husbands? Adults marrying children?

    They say that the Constitution should not discriminate. A line has got to be drawn somewhere.

    But the reason for existing laws limiting marriage to same-race couples is because of morality. Plain and simple. Agree with it or not, morality is the reason. To move the morality line to include white/black marriages but not polygamy or polyandry, or beastiality, or pedophilia, you are asking for trouble.

    A moral line has to be drawn somewhere. The logical point is a line which rewards behavior which will promote the growth of the white race. Since children can only come naturally by traditional coupling of people of the same race, it seems like the logical place to limit the definition of marriage.”

    NEXT.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Well you do make a good point about the interracial marriage bans being based on morality.

    The slippery slope is when you use the argument that same sex couples should marry because a society shouldn’t be able to define marriage.

    A bigamist can use that same argument. But if you limit marriage to TWO ADULT individuals, that makes the case against gay marriage weaker, and something I could agree with.

  • Eric Olsen

    Tom, I appreciate the fact that you try to be reasonable and don’t get too worked up when attacked. I think we will wind up with some kind of civil union compromise in the near future while the religious/moral aspect of this is hashed out for some time.

  • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

    I beg to differ Eric because many people do see it as a moral issue. That having been said, Tom it’s an unwinnable argument because you cannot force your morals on another. Either they see it or they don’t.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    This is really not about morality to me. I’m being pragmatic. There are no reasonable grounds for not allowing homosexuals to marry that I can think of. So, let’em marry. I suspect that within a decade, most people will not even give it a passing thought.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    What is more telling is that these people (conservatives) must be such failures as parents that they need the government to dictate morals to them.

    Who’s problem is this? The government’s or people? These people claim to want less government, yet invite more in.

    Riiiiight.

  • http://coldforged.org ColdForged

    A difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that the latter imposes very high costs on the societal purse. Since the parents can’t support all those offspring, those families, mainly in Utah and border states, are fed, clothed and housed by the government. And, studies of polygamy show lasting psychological harm to the women involved. Often, they are yanked out of their homes at 14 or 15 and married off to much older male relatives or friends of their fathers. Their lives are not their own.

    And there are far more perfectly normal couples that can’t support the children that they have… should they not be allowed to marry? And various other societal groups produce similar irreparable harm with mistreatment of their young — the ubiquitous southern inbreeding comes to mind. Are we now legislating to protect the gays from themselves?

    I don’t see a slippery slope: two consenting adults, period. Not three, not four, not children, not lower life forms. There is the line.

    Again, why two? Where does your moral compass come up with this restriction? Even theologians have a hard time firming up an answer to that question, so it isn’t biblical. What says that 3 people who love each other completely and honestly are any less appropriate to be married than, say, an arranged wedding between people who met once? We recognize that wedding.

    Let’s get more slippery. What about two elderly gentlemen who’ve lost their wives, become friends and eventually — for whatever reason — fall in love and desire to marry platonically. They’re not having sex which, from the examples given about pedophilia and bestiality, seems to be the main issue. Should they be denied? But this is different if one is a female?

    There’s no logic involved… it’s all about someone’s interpretation of teachings. That those “someones” are the vast majority of Americans is the issue, I guess. They decided that it’s offensive to their belief system, ergo it must be legislated out. Effective. Closed-minded and intolerant? Check. But effective.

  • http://coldforged.org ColdForged

    That having been said, Tom it’s an unwinnable argument because you cannot force your morals on another.

    Ah, but that’s just it. Those with the majority view can do just that. They cannot force me to believe as they do, but they can restrict my rights based on those views. That’s just as effective if not moreso. Who cares who’s right when it comes down to who _wins_?

  • Eric Olsen

    Ah ColdForged, you think you’re clever and all but everyone knows three’s a crowd.

  • Shark

    I can use a few more employed spouses in my household.

  • http://multimedea.blogspot.com Dew

    Gay marriage should not be seen as illegal it should be seen as sin. Fornication is far worse but there are no laws for that and its killing us left and right.

    The sad part to an otherwise decent argument is this:

    ” Will we allow men to marry multiple wives? Wives to marry multiple husbands? Adults marrying children?”

    We’re not talking about multiple anything here. We are not talking about incest or molestation. We are talking about two able bodied and sound minded adults who happen to be in love with one another, that’s it. That has nothing to do with the acts of force or multitude; they simply can not hold comparison.

    Why do two people who both happen to be of the same sex have to hide their feelings for fear they will on one extreme, lose their jobs, and on another, be killed? Because of who they love? Kind of reminds me of a slave wanting to read… And you talk about constitutional rights, please, like this country has a history of respecting anybody’s rights!

    If marriage is their choice, let them have it. They have a right to profess their love to the world like anyone else, even if makes us straight people uncomfortable.

    Note: Even in my ranting I felt the need to include I was straight. I recognize it is unnecessary, yet I still feel the need to do so. Interesting creatures we are…

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    This is going to be very embarrassing one day for the right wing, when it is written in the history books. It will be plainly and painfully obvious that ignorance and religious bias fueled this argument.

    By the way, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to within the confines of your religion, but you can’t deny benefits that everyone pays into because of your religious beliefs.

    Also, have we forgotten the meaning of the word “sanctity?” No president in any time should be protecting the sanctity of anything using powers granted to him/her in the office of the President. Separation of church and state says that.

  • Lance

    RE:
    BUX SPEECH 100 YEARS AGO…

    I have a copy of a national entertainment magazine which I keep to remind me of such things. The title across the top says in big bold letters, “Chubby Checker risks death to wed white girl”. The date? July, 1964.

    Perhaps that 100 should be changed to 40.

  • Lance

    RE:
    BUX SPEECH 100 YEARS AGO…

    I have a copy of a national entertainment magazine which I keep to remind me of such things. The title across the top says in big bold letters, “Chubby Checker risks death to wed white girl”. The date? July, 1964.

    Perhaps that 100 should be changed to 40.

    How quickly we foget.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Lance, Tom Bux probably does not approve of interracial marriages now. He is one of those people who work themselves into a fever at the thought of black people getting ‘out of their place.’ I have blogged a few of his more outrageous entries, but got so disgusted I stopped reading him. This thread was up for a while before I could even bring myself to take a look. Here is an example, an entry he titled “Black People Love the KKK.”

    An excerpt for the busy. Tom Mapp says:

    Racism is alive and doing well in America. I am not racist, you are probably not, most white people I know are not. It is a majority of Blacks, led by their “leaders” who are the ones who are racist. [Emphasis mine.]

    People like Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam and Jesse Jackson of Rainbow Push are hate mongers, constantly stirring up trouble. When they see something they don’t like they throw the accusations of “Racism!”

    I am not saying Mapp doesn’t have supporters. He does, though at least one of them, if you look at the comments, can’t even spell ‘nigger.’

    I blogged another of his entries here.

    I would encourage other readers on the thread to check out the links out, too. Then, you can put Mapp’s entry here into context. He is still opposed to the civil rights movement 40 years later, so it is not like he is going to come around on gay unions.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    This really pisses me off. I am sick of being accused of being a racist. Everytime you lefty pinkos get yoursevles painted into a corner, instead of using intellegent thought, you throw the race card. How about coming up with something new.

    When Louis Farrakhan calls Jews “Rats” and called Korean shop owners ”blood-suckers.”

    Director Spike Lee said in a BET interview ”I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.”

    Jesse Jackson has called Jews ”Hymie” and New York ”Hymie-Town.’

    Robert Byrd just a few years ago used the term “nigger” in a interview.

    So instead of accusing me of being a racist, I suggest you get a stronger argument, one that doesn’t need to fall back on calling someone names, implying they are villians.

    Take my post, “Black people love the KKK” in context. The title sucks, I can admit, but my point is valid about black hate mongering and liberal racism being ignored, but if you are white, or a conservative WATCH OUT

    And equating the gay marriage fight to the civil rights fights of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is insulting to those champions of civil rights.

    No one is denying ANYONE the right to marry. If you want to marry, marry a person of the opposite sex like has been going on for 10,000 years. No one is being denyed service at diners or being made to sit at the back of the bus.

    Grow up, get an argument, and stop throwing shit.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    “Everytime you lefty pinkos get yoursevles painted into a corner, instead of using intellegent thought, you throw the race card. How about coming up with something new.”

    Lefty pinkos?

    Funny, and you are telling people to grow up get an argument and stop throwing shit? You, the same person who goes find other people on the net to attempt to “pick” on and then say “it’s all a joke, just in fun” because you KNOW they could really rip you a new asshole if they felt you were worth the time?

    No wonder it’s called “Tom’s Nap Room”.

    Snoooooooore. ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzz

    Perhaps if you want someone to take you seriously, you might want to drop “lefty pinkos” out of your vocabulary. It’s so 1950’s and makes you so irrelevant.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Calling someone a lefty pinko is much different than calling someone a racist.

    I guess I should just ignore all comments regarding race that race bait, they are more irrelevent than when I call someone a pinko.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    No one should be calling ANYONE a name.

    You just don’t get it do you?

    No. You wouldn’t.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I gave up on this one a long time ago. Tom Mapp used to write me for advice about Mac stuff, but I will no longer talk to him. His comments read like a Ku Klux Klan meeting. His blog has become a gathering place for Aryan Nations types. And, he sees nothing wrong with that. His attitudes are stuck in the 1950s — denying more than half of humanity basic rights — and he sees nothing wrong with that, either. Life was the way it is ‘supposed to be’ back then. He hasn’t even heard that the Cold War is over.

    Be careful, Vic. Tom will post a hate page calling you a racist in a New York minute.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Again, when arguments can’t be won, weak minded individuals with weak arguments resort to playing the race card.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    And homophobes continue to insist that others follow *their* brand of morality or be punished under law.

    You’re right, Tom. This is about morality. Withholding equality under law from certain people — unjust discrimination — is immoral.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Natalie, ‘where you been’? Hope you got my email.

    On the bright side, someone has done a wonderful job of disbunking the book The Hater is citing at Amazon. See the second customer review.

    However, Amazon uses blurbs from the publisher for its intros to books. This is the first thing people see:

    Book Description
    Authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten expose the goals of the homosexual movement and its rising legal activism. The homosexual agenda has as its primary aim to “trump” the rights of all other groups, especially those of people of faith. The saddest part of the story is that it is working.

    So, one gets the impression the authors have a legitimate argument.

  • Mike

    I am having a debate on this in school. I have a gay friend but am a straight guy. The only reason I feel unconfortable debating on this is because I am going against my gay friend.

    What should I do? Should I lie about how I honestly feel about gay marriage? Should I be honest and tell him off and use discriminative things to put him down and win the debate?

    Well it is wrong to hide the way I feel about gay marriage. I do not feel confortable…people who say it is not about religion – yes, you are right, but not totally correct.

    My whole family is catholic, they are extremely religios; my mother honestly believes that gay people worship the devil, she finds it so rude when she see’s gay men, or gay women holdig hands. I saw a gay couple enter church one day and were ignored throughout the whole church. When they looked for seats, I saw people take off their jackes and purses and place them aside them. That couple had to stand and kneel at the center of the row…no seats.

    The point I am getting at is that the Church honestly does not accept gay people and especially gay marriage. Many people to this day still don’t understand and accept gay people.

    To me, being gay and loving another man is not much different for person who walks around naked because he feels like it.

    What? He’s not hurting anybody. Why can’t he walk naked? He has his rights, Freedom of expression right? Well to you it might sound nasty and wrong but to him, it is perfectly normal. So why allow gay marriage. When millions think its disguisting, immoraly incorrect, a disrespect to GOD, whatever the case might be.

    Like others were saying, a line needs to be drawn. I agree with that. Because i gaurantee you sooner or later we will be hearing little kids and growm men protesting outside the White House for equal rights…that a man and 5 women by his side will be marching and protesting along side the grown mand and the child.

    See where I’m getting at?

    I ok with gay people, although I think it is distguisting, I can’t tell them to stop, its in their blood, thats who they are and i can’t change that. But for them to battle peoples traditional setting on marriage, that is not right.

    I don’t want to grow up one day – around my 30’s – and drive by a Junior High School and see gay couples making out and just holding hands openly in front of everyone. I don’t want to ever hear my son come at me and tell me he loves a boy named [Bob] and he wants to get married. I really don’t. Which is why it needs to stop here.

    One more thing, there is no proof that gay people are born that way. No proven fact that a man is born gay, and a women can be born lesbian. So by that I am saying: little kids – babies who are adopted by gay couples will see their parents and follow their ways. They won’t see the harm of being gay. Other than the fact that his classmates will make fun of that child and bully him for having gay parents, the child will grow up with gay feelings. Seeing his father hugging his……other father. He will see nothing wrong with that. So I don’t want that to happen…

    SO GAY PEOPLE! GET THIS! I DON’T WANT YOU GETTING MARRIED! I DON’T WANT TO SEE YOU CHANGING THE WORLD BEFORE MY EYES! IF YOU GET MARRIED THEN MIGHT ASS WELL LET ANYONE AND ANYTHING GET MARRIED WITH ANY/AS MANY PEOPLE OR THINGS THEY WANT! SO STOP YOUR FIGHT FOR “JUSTICE” CUZ THERE WON’T BE ONE!!!!

  • O’ Cassidy

    Whats wrong with things being left how they are?

    Martin Luther King wrote a letter while he spent time in the Brimingham jail. In this letter he wrote several “definitions” of just and unjust laws. And I quote-

    “An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because they did not have the unhampered right to vote.”

    Well this arises an ingenious idea. Why dont we vote on gay marriage? If we did so today I’m quite sure that the majority would apose the idea. Remember, the majority also has its rights. Not to say that the majority is always right.

    But why do gay men and women really want to get married? If marriage is a union between man and woman why not leave it at that and celebrate your love through another channel? This whole gay marriage gold rush is begining to come off as more of a rebelion against tradition and norms than civil rights.

    As mature people in a democracy a reasonable agreement can be made. And alowing gays to marry in the sense of the constitution is not it. They should be alowed the same benifits and treated just as a heterosexual couple. It is the homosexual community who now needs to step back and take a grand view of what is taking place. Imagine how this scares and disgusts some people. It is hardly deomcratic to expect complete acceptance. The civil rights movement wasnt won over night, so whats the rush? Before you run of to get married with that special someone think about the entire gay community, your country and how you want this battle to be won.

    My uncle, who was gay, would always say the most “Clint Eastwood” type things. One of his favorites was “If your serious about it, do it.” and “If your gunna do it, do it right.”

    God Bless

  • Melyssa Harmon

    If you want to draw your line, but are okay with gay and lesbian people getting married, then CREATE A LAW THAT SAYS ONLY TWO ADULTS, OF LEGAL AGE, MAY MARRY UNDER THE LAW.” There’s your oh, so needed “line.” By the way, polygamy is a-okayed in the Bible, not that it’s okay with me, but it’s funny how people pick and choice what they will from the Bible. Romans tells us that a woman MUST BE A VIRGIN or the marriage is illegal but no one brings that up. Romans tells us that DIVORCE IS NOT PERMITTED byt how many Christians protesting marriage for all are leaving that out? IF WE CAN’T GET MARRIED THEN THEY CAN’T GET A DIVORCE = ) that IS the law according to the Bible, right? xo melyssa

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Are you completely off your bean, Mike? You say:

    I saw a gay couple enter church one day and were ignored throughout the whole church. When they looked for seats, I saw people take off their jackes and purses and place them aside them. That couple had to stand and kneel at the center of the row…no seats.

    I’ve had strangers refuse to sit beside me in public places. Not because I’m ugly. Not because I have B.O. Not because I’m gay. None of those apply. I just happen to have enough melanin in my skin to make it cafe au lait. That is reason enough for some folks. If people follow your guidance, just about every form of discrimination he have succeeded in making some progress in eroding will be permitted by law again. Next time, THINK before you speak.

    Where is NC? He thinks non-Catholics are making Catholics look bad at Blogcritics. Actually, it is some Catholics who are achieving that.

  • Lo

    The government shouldn’t give benifits for any marriage simply because marriage is defined by religion first, government second. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriages in the first place, and that’s why I’ll marry who I want regardless of what benifits I recieve. I do it for the love people, not for the money.

  • holly

    this site is gay

  • http://www.blogbloke.com Blog Bloke

    It’s silly to argue this. Bottom line is you will NEVER convince evangelical Christians to accept it, and the gay activists will react accordingly.

    The politicians and courts will decide for us.

  • boomcrashbaby

    It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.

    There are so many opponents of gay marriage who consistently use the bible and the church as reasons for not allowing federal recognition of gay marriage. Should the church be used to define how the government treats it’s citizens, then we should quit making condoms and quit all forms of sex education, even those outside of the school system, and this country should acknowledge abstinence only because that is the view of the church.

    We need to quit bitching about a glass ceiling for women because the church believes that women cannot be priests, they cannot achieve what men can, so the government should do the same.

    We need to quit this facade of trying to get rid of racism. America has been referred to as a melting pot when you look at the diversity of people who make up this great nation. But if there’s any one thing that seems to bind most Americans together, it’s the overall belief in God. So the church could play a major role in mending the great divide and healing race relations. But does it? Visit any church on a Sunday morning, and you’ll see it’s one of the most segregated hours in American life. Blacks go to black churches and whites go to white churches.

    We (as a government) need to condemn Scientology, Wiccans, Athiests, et. al. because the church clearly says that only through them can one find heaven.

    If we are going to use religion to dictate how the federal government treats it’s citizens, we need to go all the way. Or else we need to stand up and be proud of our hypocrisy.

  • Sandra Smallson

    O’Cassidy: But why do gay men and women really want to get married? If marriage is a union between man and woman why not leave it at that and celebrate your love through another channel? This whole gay marriage gold rush is begining to come off as more of a rebelion against tradition and norms than civil rights.

    Sandra: Spot on. Being gay in itself is a rebellion of some sort against one thing or the other either consciously or sub consciously. Ah..they are going to go on about genes and geneticists and since they were 3 Jake knew he liked Jared and all that jazz. Poppycock!

    The core of the whole thing is “rebellion” and if a documentary was done into the past/childhood of a 100 gay people, let me guarantee you that you would find no less than 99 where you can pinpoint the exact environmental, societal or psychological impact that led to this rebellion that has now become habit and natural to them. The other one is just lying through his or her teeth. This rebellion is manifesting itself in their gold rush for marriage once again. Even if you gave them all those rights they would still want to BE MARRIED. It is in their nature. To rebel. That is afterall why they are gay in the 1st place. Call me ignorant, call me what you will. I could not care less. Yet, you know I am right whether you want to admit it or not.

    It’s not only Christianity that condemns homosexuality, Islam condemns homosexuality in the Koran. It is a sin. It is condemned. Get over it and focus on things like these tax credits and whatevr else is causing you guys strife like hospital visits and what not. Picking things from the Bible that are being ignored or overlooked in no way justifies homosexuality.

    The history of two of the world’s major religions have it documented that God/Allah condemns homosexuality. No new age poppy cock is going to change that. It is a moral thing. It is a religious thing. If you feel bad, it’s all on you. Nobody is making you feel bad. If you truly believed you were born gay and God is on your side, you should not give a fuck what the “Christian right” have to say. BUT you care because deep down you all know the truth and this mass denial is laughable. Accept it just like heterosexuals have accepted their many sins.

    Morality stems from religion no matter what you say. The world did not just develop a moral code. It is all from religion and then the nit pickers choose what they want, argue against religion and then tell you, you don’t have to be religious to have moral ethics. That may be true. What is also true however, is that God by all accounts did not intend for people of the same sex to have sex. One man, One woman. Husband/ wife. Go ye into the world and multiply. This can only take place via male/female intercourse. There is nothing else one can say to you people. I always promise myself not to write again on the tens of similar topics regarding this matter but everytime there are posts that just make you want to shake some people out of this delusional world they’ve barricaded themselves into.

    As for replacing the word gay, with black in the paragraphs above, it truly shows how mad this whole thing is getting when gays and gay supporters somehow think their situation is as natural as the pigmentation of human skin.LOL. Honestly, the world is truly going stark raving bonkers.

  • boomcrashbaby

    It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.

    Since this comment is always followed by those who repeat over and over that this religion and that religion condemns homosexuality, I guess the appropriate response would be:

    It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.

    It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.

    It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.

    Morality stems from religion no matter what you say.

    Sandra, everytime you post something after me, it just gets more and more hysterically funny. By this philosophy all athiests would be indifferent to murder.

    Is there anybody else out there that is so far removed from reality, that they think without religion we would be uncivilized beasts? Or would we use religion to be civil like those who just beheaded an American in the name of Allah?

  • Nick Jones

    “It is in their nature. To rebel. That is afterall why they are gay in the 1st place. Call me ignorant, call me what you will. I could not care less. Yet, you know I am right whether you want to admit it or not.”

    Alright, you’re wrong and you’re ignorant. I’m not even gay and I know this. I don’t even support gay marriage – but I don’t see it as a dire threat either.

    I suspect that you’ve never even talked to anyone gay about their life experiences. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends and acquaintances that I’ve had over the years have all told me the same thing: it wasn’t a choice they made, it was an inherent part of their nature. A roommate I had in college just “knew” when was 14. No traumatic event, no molestation, no smothering mother – he just knew. Another was a guy who grew up in a rough part of Boston called Charlestown, who would go around with his buddies beating up on gays. Not until he turned thirty, and was married with a daughter, did he understand that his hatred was a reaction against his own denied sexuality. The only “rebellion” involved for these and others I’ve met is that they refused to pretend (eventually, anyway) that they were something that they weren’t, to not squeeze themselves into some societal pigeonhole where they’d be miserable.

    Actually, the one thing I do like about the gay marriage thing is that gay guys will finally know what’s it like for straight guys, having some whiny little bitch constantly nagging for a “commitment”…
    B-D

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Didn’t see the later comments until now. Just want to add that I agree with Steve (Boom). Morality and religion are not necessarily synonymous. Morality can spring from reason as well as from faith. I’ve been an agnostic since I was about nine years old, and, I don’t think it has made me an immoral person. The Golden Rule is a very reasonable code of conduct, Sandra. So, even a person who is not religious can relate to it.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Nick, I am not going to go into that discussion again. Check the archives and you will see my views on what you have printed. I don’t find homosexuality a threat at all. If you do check the archives you will see that I TOO have friends that are that way inclined. As if to have friends suddenly makes us any the wiser. Your friends say tomato, my friends say potato. So, what?!

    BC: I have said before that it brings me pleasure to make you laugh whether at me or with me. I get the feeling you do not laugh often enough in your life.

    “Morality stems from religion no matter what you say. The world did not just develop a moral code. It is all from religion and then the nit pickers choose what they want, argue against religion and then tell you, you don’t have to be religious to have moral ethics. That may be true.”

    BC, as usual you pick what you want and run with it. Now, that’s the whole paragraph that comment is from. What part of that do you not understand? Especially the last sentence which clearly concedes that you do not have to be religious to have moral ethics thereby leaving room for the atheists. However, the point of that paragraph is that what is moral does stem from religion whether you want to believe it or not. What society considers moral all stems from religion. You may have people who have become non-religious but have moral values.

    The moral ethics which they live by STEM FROM RELIGION. Is it the “stem” you do not understand. Or is it like everythig else in your world? You want to hear what you want to hear and continure to parade in delusion?!

  • Nick Jones

    But you talk like it’s a threat, overreacting just like you do anytime someone criticizes Michael Jackson or Badonna. You don’t say what this “rebellion” you’re talking about is. Rebellion against what? Who do you think you’re defending?

  • Sandra Smallson

    Oh, and boomcrash sweetie, if “It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.” Why is the whole of your post 45 filled with Church related matters? As are most of your posts on this matter. Everytime you tell us you don’t want acceptance. Yet when you post on the matter you continue to tell us how the Church has got it all wrong and all that is bad about the church.

    If you don’t give a shit and it’s the govt you need attention from why not focus on that? Why not write the pros to granting you these things you want? Where in that comment 45 do you discuss in detail about getting equality from the Govt? Yet you go on about the Church as you so often do.

    It’s all well and good repeating what you say your point is but unlike you, I read things in context and a summary of a majority of your posts is the picture of a person crying out for understanding and acceptance by the Church or religion. I don’t know why. Seeing as I don’t think you would be kicked out of any church you were to go into. You don’t have gay written on your forhead do you?!

  • Sandra Smallson

    ROTFLMAO. You’ve lost me Nick Jones. What? Honestly! What do you not understand? I am not going to repeat myself. I don’t know how to do it if not I would have linked you to my previous posts on this matter. Perhaps you would be more enlightened about why I do not think it is “inherent” in their nature. Perhaps you would understand what I mean by rebellion. Then again, even if I knew how to do it I am not sure I give a damn about exchanging opinions with you enough to link you to the matter. Atleast I enjoy Boomcrash..lol

    As far as over reacting to MJ..LOL..I would want to be slapped if I tried to explain to you what a discussion/debate is and how not thinking MJ is guilty and stating your view in no way means over reaction. Why would I want to be slapped? Because only a pre-pubescent jerk off still stuck on the playgrounds at Kindergarten would be stupid enough to publicly say “badonna”. How childish is that? LOL. Either that or you are in your 40’s but have the brain of the above mentioned pre-pubescent jack off.

    Is the above over reaction? Either way you haven’t stimulated me enough. Play again. I might start to enjoy you:)

  • Nick Jones

    “Badonna” was too easy to pass up. Could’ve gone with “Mad Donna”, but I’ve been using that one for twenty-odd years.

    You should find a way to link to these so-called rebellion posts; otherwise, you just look like you’re avoiding answering the question, that you can’t defend your position. And I don’t think you can.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Nick: You should find a way to link to these so-called rebellion posts; otherwise, you just look like you’re avoiding answering the question, that you can’t defend your position. And I don’t think you can.

    Sandra: You are free to think what you think:)

    Nick: “Badonna” was too easy to pass up. Could’ve gone with “Mad Donna”, but I’ve been using that one for twenty-odd years.

    Sandra: They say she is amused by them both if the tabloid press where you got those two from are to be believed. Why not use Madge? We hear she hates that. Or her Madgesty…for the next twenty odd years. Or maybe you should start thinking up names for Lourdes? The apple never falls too far from the tree so y’all better brace yourselves:)

  • boomcrashbaby

    BC: I have said before that it brings me pleasure to make you laugh whether at me or with me. I get the feeling you do not laugh often enough in your life.

    Well, thank you Sandra. It’s not often someone wants to bring laughter into my life by telling me over and over again, “Homosexuality is a sin according to the church, down the street, of which you are not a part, so you should NOT get married by the government under which you MUST live under. Deal with it.” It’s very considerate of you to try to get me to laugh with such repartee. Thank you.

    And just to clarify, since you have this impression of what my life is like…most of my life is like Daddy DayCare. There’s plenty of laughter and happiness. The unhappiness comes at times when couples like those next door (analogy-not really next door) can get a home loan from the federal government because they are married, and people use the reasoning for that as ‘they are the ones capable of multiplying’. Yet my family cannot get the home loan because my spouse is not eligible to co-sign, even though…guess what…my family has multiplied. And before you go on about ‘it takes a man and a woman to have intercourse to multiply’, might I remind you about the Immaculate Conception. By your ideology, you would have put Joseph and Mary in the barn, and not because there was no room in the inn.

    A government should be about promoting family, stability and security for ALL it’s citizens, not just individuals who have the capacity to ‘easily’ multiply whether they choose to do so or not.

    “Morality stems from religion no matter what you say….you don’t have to be religious to have moral ethics. That may be true.”

    The reason I dispute your comment that morality stems from religion and did not focus on the rest, is simple. You and I define morality differently. Morality is a code of conduct. Dogs and cats are natural enemies. Yet if you raise one of each together from birth, they can become best friends. So what is responsible for that code of conduct? The Virgin Mary or the 700 club? Nonsense. They became friends because, being so close to each other, they wouldn’t have survived otherwise.

    The moral ethics which they live by STEM FROM RELIGION.

    I realize most people do not apply morality to animals. But my belief is that humans are animals. Animals with intelligence. Human morality evolved because it assists survival. An innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong may help an individual to survive and reproduce in a social, thinking species.

    Oh, and boomcrash sweetie, if “It’s not about convincing anybody of faith to accept it. It’s about equal treatment from the government.” Why is the whole of your post 45 filled with Church related matters?

    Yet another simple answer, that even those who disagree with me, like Nick, can understand, except for you apparently. My post is filled with church related matters, because those matters are the reason for the federal government denying me equality. Go back to my post and see how the whole context of it is saying that people pick and choose which church related matters to build a government on.

    I read things in context and a summary of a majority of your posts is the picture of a person crying out for understanding and acceptance by the Church or religion.

    No. I repeatedly talk about, in posts like #45, the separation of church and state. Since you cannot see it, it is clearly obviously that you, like a great many other people, cannot make a distinction between the two (church and state). People like you, use the church to define what the state should be. Therefore, when I talk about what the state should be, I need to address your definition of it, which always stems from religion.

    Perhaps you would be more enlightened about why I do not think it is “inherent” in their nature. Perhaps you would understand what I mean by rebellion.

    This was not addressed to me, but I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on it. It’s obvious Sandra, that you and I will never come to an agreement on anything in relation to this, because we define morality differently. We see church and state relations differently. We see the path to God differently. Do you believe in evolution or creationism? The basis of most of what you believe in and what I believe in, comes from a different source. So that’s why it isn’t about getting people like you to accept me. It’s about getting a government too. The problem arises when people like me (a minority), must live under a government run by the ideals of people like you (the majority). That’s the problem, however the difference between our countries and much of the rest of the world is that I have freedom of speech to speak out against the irrationality of the majority.

  • boomcrashbaby

    One afterthought, since you repeatedly misconstrue what I am saying:

    No, I am not comparing my family to the Immaculate Conception. I’m saying by your definition though of who should be rewarded and penalized by a government, if you were alive back then, think about how you would have treated the most untraditional family of that time.

  • http://www.mbgz.com James Golden

    I have an idea:

    Instead of passing ammendments limiting who can or cannot get married, why don’t we all just work hard at trying to do something about the 50% divorce rate or the fact that so many children are abused (sexually or otherwise) by their single parent’s hetero partners?

  • boomcrashbaby

    Works for me James. I think that the government should not be in the business of rewarding or punishing families. I concede that marriage is religious based, my problem stems from government rewarding/punishing such. I also believe in a flat tax regardless of income. Government rewards/punishes too much in matters that have nothing to do with true morality.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Goodness me! Boomcrash, like you have stated we will never agree on this matter. I am getting dizzy cos we keep going round in circles. We keep misunderstanding each other.

    I have stated ad nauseum that I am fully in support of the dichotomy b/w Church and State. I even understand it. My religious views are simply that. Religious views. I am not going to go into detail about morality and so on because you and I are not getting any closer to understanding each other.

    I don’t even remember what topic it was but the discussion was b/w Eric and I where I was explaining my view as to why people are not born gay. I’m sorry you missed it. Then again, it would only confirm your views of me on this matter so reading it might be superfluous.

    We agree to disagree until the hundredth time when the hundredth person posts another similar topic and we are at it again:) Enjoy.

  • boomcrashbaby

    ….why people are not born gay. I’m sorry you missed it. Then again, it would only confirm your views of me on this matter so reading it might be superfluous.

    That’s too bad. Because I’d probably agree with you. I think sexuality is a spectrum. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being straight and 10 being gay, I think most people fall somewhere inbetween. Maybe 2, 3 or 8, etc. It is the 1’s and the 10’s that will be the most vocal though. I think millions are born gay, but I also think that a great many do fall into their sexuality by nurture as opposed to nature. However, that doesn’t make it by choice of course.

    I have stated ad nauseum that I am fully in support of the dichotomy b/w Church and State. I even understand it. My religious views are simply that. Religious views.

    Yes, I know. Religious views that must be espoused whenever one talks about separation of church and state.

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    tom bux:

    it is obvious that you are trying to be another rush limbaugh or jerry falwell.

    you are lacking …let me see…..how do you say….a unique point of view.

    again, you should ask youself why you take this issue to personal.

    jack

  • Sandra Smallson

    No, Boom. Religious views that must be espoused when gay marriage is discussed and the Church is mentioned. I have never seen any of your posts as major posts on seperation of Church and State. Of course, that is the core of our disagreement:) Neither of us understands each other and we always misconstrue our posts. C’est la vie. I have nothing more to add at present.

  • http://www.cdbaby.com/X-15 Douglas Mays

    Oh Christ! The fucking church telling the state what it can and cannot do… loaded with sophmoric analogies.

    Oh man, marriage is just a lifestyle business merger. Shoot, two heterosexuals that have been housemates for years should be aloud to ‘marry’, or basically business merger. The business of life and self.

    Anyway, peaceloveguidance

  • lera

    im doing debates on against gay marriages, but im not it is hard but im trying to see the point of view. would some one help me?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    lera wrote: “im doing debates on against gay marriages, but im not it is hard but im trying to see the point of view. would some one help me?”

    There are no logical arguments against the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

    The position against the secular, legal recognition of same- sex marriage is untenable, which is why the people on that side of the debate often resort to slippery slope and strawman fallacies (just read some of the previous postings to this topic) rather than presenting us with demonstrable proof that recognizing homosexuals’ right to the secular legal benefits and protections of civil marriage will harm society and the civil institution of marriage.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    I have done a lot of soul searching over this issue, I can go either way. My beef with gay marriage isn’t so much religious and Godly, but with the way they went about doing it. They pushed it through via court edict or ignored the will of the people.

    Also the argument that ‘people who love each other” is dangerous because as I’ve said, you have to set limits somewhere. Many of the sloppily thrown together arguments for gay marriage can also be used for other forms of marriage that may be even less desirable.

    If they would frame their arguments in a fashion based on reason (spousal privelege, taxes, benefits) then I see no reason why some sort of union couldn’t be justified.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    We have a three branch system of government for a balance of power which is supposed to secure and guarantee the rights of all Americans.

    Using the judicial branch to secure our rights when the executive and legislative branches do not provide relief is how our system of government it is supposed to work against the tyranny of the majority.

    Were it not for this wonderfully ingenious system — which is currently in peril because of the prevalence of the political subtexts that go along with the expression, “activist judges” — we’d still have such things as “whites only” drinking fountains in many of our great Southeastern states.

    So, please don’t resent it when people use the courts to secure rights which the executive and legislative bodies have thus far failed to secure. This type of thinking is dangerous to all of our civil liberties if it leads to a reshaping of the processes by which our government guarantees our rights.

    The fact that these slippery slope and strawman fallacies have been so heaviliy implemented by the folks who believe that the institution of marriage must be “protected” from homosexuals who wish to enter into it provides obvious clues about the strength of their case.

    I have engaged in productive discourse in favor of the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage without ever having to resort to such weak arguments. And that is not because I am such a good debater, but because my position is so strong in comparison.

    The reason for the mention of “people who love each other” is partly a counter to hateful anti-homosexual propaganda that suggests that homosexuality is all about lust, as if homosexual couples do not feel love for one another and are thus incapapble of having long-term committed relationships.

    Pay no mind to politically weakened liberals who cannot seem to articulate the pragmatism of committed homosexual couples enjoying the benefits and protections of secular, legal marriage without getting all whiny and emotional.

    The conservative case in favor of the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage is very strong because it is pragmatic and pro-capitalism.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    We have a three branch system of government for a balance of power which is supposed to secure and guarantee the rights of all Americans.

    Using the judicial branch to secure our rights when the executive and legislative branches do not provide relief is how our system of government it is supposed to work against the tyranny of the majority.

    Wrong. The job of the judiciary is not to pass laws as they see fit or require that the legislature pass laws at the discretion of the judges.

    Laws are passed by lawmakers at the behest of constituents and then deemed lawful or not, not the other way around.

  • kyyyle

    In the end, it all comes down to this:

    Modern-day marriage is based on the code of Christianity, basically. Although, marriage had been going on for many years before Christ was even born, so really it was not a Christian concept, but rather adapted.

    Christianity controls many of our politician’s decisions, including abortion and gay marriage. I am heterosexual, but I think that homosexuals should be look no differently than heterosexuals; that should’nt even have to be explained.

    So, we built this country with the American dream: No one has to believe in one religion, and most importantly we will be free! Equal rights, etc. The American dream aided in the freeing of African-Americans, making them equal to Caucasians. They created Separation of Church and State to ensure the American dream is carried out.

    Now, voters are voting based on their religion, rather than what is right. They vote pro-life because their belief in life before birth, rather than voting pro-choice because the government has no right to control what a girl can do to her body. They vote against same-sex marriage because it is not natural in the Christian religion, rather than notice that everyone should have equal rights and marriage is about LOVE.

    Before Christianity, Greek men were allowed to marry, for homosexuality was encouraged in military. So, it is actually more sacred to allow same-sex marriages.

    And pertaining to this whole landslide idea, that is just ridiculous. If anyone pleads for that then they will get denied. How is homosexuals the same as multiple partners or child and father? If you believe they are similar, then go ahead. But, wtf, mates?

    I think we should all just have a mass-migration to Canada where people are truly free. America isn’t “the land of the free” its the “land of christianity” Let’s take that former quote out of our Pledge of Allegiance.

    Disgusting.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    Tom wrote: “Wrong. The job of the judiciary is not to pass laws as they see fit or require that the legislature pass laws at the discretion of the judges.”

    Correct. The job of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and that august duty includes striking down laws it finds unconsitutional and calling for legislation to gaurantee and secure our constitutional rights.

    Tom wrote: “Laws are passed by lawmakers at the behest of constituents and then deemed lawful or not, not the other way around.”

    And when such laws are deemed unconstitutional, striking down those laws is the duty of the judicial branch.

    Now that the civics lesson is over, how about answering The Question?

    Who is harmed and specifically how are they harmed by the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

    If you cannot answer that question clearly and directly, then you have no case.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    How is homosexuals the same as multiple partners or child and father?

    Exactly, kyyyle. There is an existing definition of relationships, that has already been determined by law for a variety of situations. It is the definition of two consenting adults. A gay relationship falls inside of that definition as does a heterosexual marriage. Multiple partners and minors do not, so they are whole different realms.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Who is harmed and specifically how are they harmed by the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

    If you cannot answer that question clearly and directly, then you have no case.

    As I said, no one is harmed, and I am for some sort of union with all the rights and privledges hetero partners share.

    My beef isn’t with gay marriage, it’s with the way it is being pushed through by the courts.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    Tom wrote: “My beef isn’t with gay marriage, it’s with the way it is being pushed through by the courts.”

    But that is how our system of government works to secure and guarantee all of our rights.

    The mistake you have made is quite common. America is not a true democracy, even if a good number of Americans seem to believe that it is (especially when it suits their own personal interests).

    America is a representative republic, which means that our rule of law is based upon the principles and precedures in our Constitution, not the will of the majority.

    If our laws were based upon majority rule without regard for our Constitution, we would be living in tyranny, not freedom.

    Please, please read up on this because knowledge is the power which protects all of us from tyranny.

    And if you don’t learn more for that reason, please consider this: I have tried to be kind and gentle in correcting your mistaken assupmtions about how our system of government works to protect all of our civil rights and liberties, but sooner or later you might make a similar post somewhere out there and some people will royally flame you for your lack of knowledge.

    I have made this post because I hope to encourage you and others to learn more about our great and glorious free republic, not because I wish to insult you or anybody else.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    America is a representative republic, which means that our rule of law is based upon the principles and precedures in our Constitution, not the will of the majority.

    If our laws were based upon majority rule without regard for our Constitution, we would be living in tyranny, not freedom.

    Please, please read up on this because knowledge is the power which protects all of us from tyranny.

    I am well aware of that. I was an American Studies major in college. I know that we are a Republic, and I understand how government works.

    It comes down to the interpretation of the seperation of powers. My beef is with the way the major of San Franscisco totally disobeyed the law on the books by issuing marriage certificates at his whim to fit his agenda, and how the court in Mass. rammed what they wanted as law down the throats of the legislature. Those two examples promted my post.

    I also don’t appreciate the insinuation that I don’t understand how our system of government works. It’s insulting and pretentious.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    There was a discussion just after the election, where one (male) person gave this discription:

    At the place where I work, there were 19 people who voted in the election. 2 voted Republican and 17 voted democratic (for Kerry)….Now this election took place in Oregon where there was a vote on same sex marriages. Now check this out….all 17 democrats voted against the amendment. In other words, not a single person, regardless of their political persuasion, voted for the amendment. The person then went on to voice his reason(s) why he personally voted against the measure. His main reason was that he considered two homosexuals to be an abombination of nature, as did Darwin. In his opinion, homosexuals could pursue civil unions but not marriage.

    I think there were 11 states that tried to pass a same sex measure….every one of them failed miserably.

    All this goes to show that the sentiments against same sex marriages are widespread and held by people from all different political/religious and socio-economic backgrounds. From judges to educators, they all can agree on this issue.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    I sincerely aplogize if any of my remarks offended you, my intention was to educate, not to offend.

    In my defense I submit that your educational background was not readily apparent in the context of your previous remarks.

    People who understand and appreciate our system of goverment do not usually make comments like, “They pushed it through via court edict or ignored the will of the people,” or “The job of the judiciary is not to pass laws as they see fit or require that the legislature pass laws at the discretion of the judges.” or “Laws are passed by lawmakers at the behest of constituents and then deemed lawful or not, not the other way around.”

    What Mayor Gavin Newsom did in San Francisco was an act of civil disobedience. Like Rosa Parks did in 1955 when she refused to give up her city bus seat to a white man, Mayor Newsom broke the law in order to make a point. People who understand and appreciate our system of goverment do not usually, in the same paragraph, compare acts of civil disobedience and court rulings.

    People who understand and appreciate our system of government usually do not make remarks like “…rammed what they wanted as law down the throats of the legislature.” when discussing court rulings.

    Please read the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860
    and you will learn that the Massachusetts Supreme court did not “ram” anything down anybody’s throat, but rather upheld the constitution of the state of Massachusetts.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Hey – not for nothin’, but there’s been a Defense of Marraige Act since ’97. Signed into law by Slick Willie and a democratically controlled congress.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    andy marsh wrote: ” Hey – not for nothin’, but there’s been a Defense of Marraige Act since ’97.”

    Indeed there has been. However, the problem with the DOMA, according to legal experts on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue, is that it is not likely to pass constitutional scrutiny in the courts.

    Thus the reason why opponents of same-sex marriage are pushing for a constitutional amendment to pre-emtively ban the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage before the DOMA is struck down by the courts.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Mayor Newsom broke the law in order to make a point.

    Legal analysts out here in Ca, think it is only a matter of time before the court system strikes down the law that the Mayor violated. So while he was found guilty of violating the law at the time, ultimately history is going to be on his side and he will be written in the history books, like Rosa Parks.

    Most all of the major advancements in civil rights have come as the result of civil disobedience. At the very least, he brought national awareness to the thousands of couples standing on the city hall steps.

    I have a question for Tom. One of your ‘beefs’ is what the Mayor did. So am I correct in understanding that part of the rationale for you being against the Right to Marry for millions of couples, is because of the actions of one man?

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Legal analysts out here in Ca, think it is only a matter of time before the court system strikes down the law that the Mayor violated. So while he was found guilty of violating the law at the time, ultimately history is going to be on his side and he will be written in the history books, like Rosa Parks.

    Don’t even compare Mayor Newsome to Rosa Parks. They are not on the same plane.

    The difference between Mayor Newsome and Rosa Parks is that she has no political office. It is reasonable for a citizen to perform acts of civil disobedience, not reasonable for a person who swore an oath to uphold the law to. An elected officer doesn’t have the same luxery to just ignore laws he sees fit to ignore.

    And that’s the issue.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Don’t even compare Mayor Newsome to Rosa Parks. They are not on the same plane.

    It’s subjective Tom. I agree that one cannot weigh civil rights abuses of one group against another, it’s wrong to compare them. It would also be wrong to dismiss one as more irrelevant than another because that would be comparing them as well.

    Too many people think that the gay community grows up privileged like Will from Will and Grace or something. But the fact is that the systematic prejudice that gay people endure leads to a reported 1,000+ hate crimes per year against gay men. and only 30% of law enforcement agencies even bother to track this stuff, and you know a great many people won’t bother reporting it because of the stigma, so violence and murder against gay people is still very prevalent.

    Amnesty Int. a few years back listed the American public school system as one of the great violators of civil rights on the planet, because of the fear that so many gay youth go through all day, often so great that it can hinder their ability to learn. The suicide rate of gay youth is 5 times the national average because of the oppression and stigma.

    I wouldn’t compare any of that, with any other group and the civil rights abuses they endured, and not to get this topic off track from the Right to Marry, but I wouldn’t dismiss the Mayor as more irrelevant than Rosa Parks either. Civil rights abuses are civil rights abuses, and some of us answer to a higher moral law that can supersede man’s law. Being mayor of SF, he probably has a better understanding of the societal impact that the prejudice has, than the average American too.

    And that’s the issue.

    It’s unfortunate that you choose to limit your acceptance of the Right to Marry for all adults based on the actions of one man.

    It’s also ironic that his reasoning was that the law violated the Constitution and as I said, legal analysts predict the courts will eventually rule that. So eventually it will be proven that the State Constitution was on his side, he WAS following a vow, but it still doesn’t matter to you. That’s too bad.

    Sometimes I wonder if it was reversed, and he was violating the Constitution because he wanted to uphold a law, if he wouldn’t still have been condemned.

    And how about leaders, and/or elected officials, who violate international law? Do we apply the same condemning standards across the board?

  • Dan

    Most people, I think, believe that society has the right to define marriage democratically. As they did overwhelmingly at the polls in November. Homosexuals aren’t being denied the right to marry, they’re only being denied the right to marry someone who they are sexually attracted to. (if they aren’t bi-sexual, which many are.)

    People who argue that it should be legal since they can’t see any harm in it are missing the point. NAMBLA members claim that they are being denied the right to a mutually satisfying and consensual relationship with young boys because of a silly societally defined age of consent law. This society has defined that the age of consent is 18. Historically that’s not always been the case. When the constitution does not specifically say what the definition of a consentual adult is, Society steps in and determines through Democratic consensus what it should be. Same thing for marriage.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    When adults take sexual or other advantage of the ignorance and inexperience of youth, there are obvious victims whose suffering is readily apparent. Children must be protected from adults who would abuse them.

    There is no victim when two homosexual adults get married. Who needs to be protected from homosexuals getting married to the people they love?

    This is not about homosexuals’ right to marry “someone who they are sexually attracted to.” The suggestion is demeaning because it intimates that homosexuals in committed relationships do not feel love for one another.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Most people, I think, believe that society has the right to define marriage democratically.

    Most people do think that. Unfortunately though, that is not the case, and every time it gets pointed out that it is not the case, someone gets labeled an ‘activist’ judge. The fact of the matter is, in almost every single case where it has gone through the court, the same conclusion has been reached, so either it’s not activism, or they’re ALL activists. That’s why there’s such a rush to rewrite historical documents. Justice has pretty consistently fallen on one side.

    Do you think society should be able to vote democratically on a law that requires everybody over 35 to be put to sleep? You can’t vote something into law that deliberately harms people. It has been proven time and time again, through civil rights court cases that led to desegregation though the gay communities battle for marriage that ostrazation, prejudice and the societal stigma that follows a Separate but Equal way of life deprives entire groups of people of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s why it shouldn’t be put to a democratic vote.

  • Dan

    I didn’t intimate that homosexuals in committed relationships do not feel love for one another. Only that the special right that some of them seek–beyond the right to marry opposite sex partners–is based on their sexual attraction. This is just obviously true. I don’t begrudge them this desire.

    I would only argue–on behalf of those who care– that since homo-sexual marriage, (and age of consent laws) are not defined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, that these are matters that fall under societal purveyance and are subject to the democratic whims of the people. That is why people cry about activist judges.

    Prostitution is another example. It seems to work in Nevada, but everywhere else people overwhelmingly reject the “right” of “working girls” (and boys) to this pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn’t matter if it is seen as harmless by a judge somewhere else. Killing people over 35 would likely come under Constitutional jurisdiction, but that would be a matter for judicial review, should democratically elected legislators make it law.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    everywhere else people overwhelmingly reject the “right” of “working girls” (and boys) to this pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

    That is a profession. I don’t see that as comparable to an emotional, intimate relationship with another human being. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have a Right to bear children, but I don’t think that means we can conclude there isn’t such a Right.

    Killing people over 35 would likely come under Constitutional jurisdiction, but that would be a matter for judicial review, should democratically elected legislators make it law.

    While the term ‘marriage’ might not be in the Constitution, equality is. Harming another individual seems to fall under Constitutional jurisdiction. And it’s been proven that segregation and Separate but Equal cause harm. That’s the bottom line, it always seems to override the ‘right’ to stigmatize and discriminate.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    The right to marry is not a “special” right because it is not a matter of sexual attraction, but of choice.

    That the distinction is confusing to some people is indicative of a most disturbing trend to prioritize the sexual component of marriage.

    While sex is important, no marriage — gay or straight — is going to last for very long if that’s all there is to it.

    The right to marry is mainly about choice because people who feel committed to one another have far more than sexual feelings for one another.

    Think about how you would feel if you were told that you could not marry the person of your choosing simply because other people would be made uncomfortable by your relationship.

    For the record here, the above refers to the marriage rights of pairs (2) of consenting adult human beings who do not share consanguinity and who are sufficiently mentally competent to understand the responsibilities and obligations of the marriage contract — just as marriage has always been regulated for heterosexuals.

    But the essential question is one of who is harmed. If we recognize same-sex marriage, no one is harmed. However, if we do not recognize it, many people and their familes are harmed because they have been denied the rights and dignity of equal full-fledged citizenship in this free nation.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Bush talked about the importance of families yesterday. Sadly, he didnt’ mean all families.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    It’s not really about equality…it’s about entitlement.

    Same sex couples want the same entitlements that Married Couples enjoy.

    Like health insurance and tax breaks.

    Just not gonna happen.

  • Eric Olsen

    then it’s about equality of entitlement

  • Don’t come thru the Back Door

    Now you are on the right track. Don’t believe that esoteric bs about equality.

    They just want something they are not entitled to.

  • Eric Olsen

    why are some people entitled to an entitlement and others not? As stated earlier, some matters are beyond the vagueries of majority whim – that’s why we have such things as judicial review and are not a pure democracy but a representative republic/democracy hybrid.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I guess “Sarge” doesn’t think the 14th amendment means much. [Hint: It’s about equal treatment under the law.]

    Not surprising.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    Don’t come thru the Back Door wrote: “They just want something they are not entitled to.”

    Why aren’t they entitled to their right to marry? Do you have any pragmatic arguments to back up your assertion?

    Can you answer The Question that no other opponent of same-sex marriage can answer: Who is harmed and specifically how are they harmed by the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    If one person who is against equal rights under the law for homosexuals could please explain to me how allowing two adults who happen to be of the same sex marry undermines my heterosexual marriage of 11 years I would really appreciate it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I’ve said before that I would be for civil unions as long as they are 100% the same as marriage. I don’t care if some people have the need to call it differently, because I know they will call it what they want to anyway.

    Courts have pretty consistently shown though that civil unions amount to separate but equal and history has shown us that that ideology does not mesh well with full equality.

    I can’t speak for my community, but what I personally am in it for? The equal treatment for my family. For all of my life, I have suffered discrimination, prejudice, violence, police brutality and ostrazation. I never really cared enough about myself to speak out, or thought that things were too ingrained to be changed. But now millions of us have kids and we’re speaking out on behalf of our families. If you think about it, we don’t really have a choice, we have to do this because it is overdue.

    While I think I would like the government to get out of the business of recognizing relationships altogether, my biggest concern with giving marriage to the churches and civil unions to the state, would be the potential for discrimination to still exist.

    Suppose a mortgage company offered a rate for unionized couples that was higher and just out of reach, whereas it offered a lower rate for married couples? Then discrimination for my family would still exist.
    How could someone who is in favor of state recognized unions and church recognized marriages convince me that wouldn’t happen?

    I’ve heard people say that marriage originated in the churches, but it’s my understanding that marriage was originally a transfer of property. I think it was the Bible, when it spoke of Adam and Eve and ‘one flesh’, that people decided that referred to marriage and so marriage must then belong to religion. So religion suddenly and automatically gets ownership of marriage and all of it’s societal benefits.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    R U for Real?

    You are really this dopey? Let me help you out. It’s not about equality. It’s one thing to say a black is equal to a white man or latin man or whatever. We can all agree they are equal. It is entirely erronous to say a hetrosexual couple is equal to a homosexual couple. They are simply incongruent to each.

    It’s all about entitlement. Homosexual couples want the same entitlements afforded to Married couple. It is intellictually dishonest to suggest otherwise. Those people who frame the argument up as ‘Why shouldn’t two consenting adults who love each other get married’ are just plain goofed up.

    Let take an example. Let’s assume three ‘families’, one homosexual and two hetrosexual. Let’s call one (the homosexual family) Boomcrashbaby and lets call one of the hetrosexual families-Spiderleaf. The last family (hetrosexual), lets call it DCTTBD (Don’t come thru the back door).

    In the case of health insurance, the two hetrosexual families have health insurance for for the worker and the spouse. For the homosexual, (because they are not spouses) each member of the ‘family’ must work and obtain their own health insurance. Now if we were to make homosexuals couples married couples, then have of the homosexuals in the ‘community’ would drop their insurance and become spouses on their partner’s insurance. Because of the drop off in rates, insurance companies would have no choice but to raise their rate for the rest of us. Because homosexuality is considered a riskier life style (higher medical costs than hetrosexuals) insurance companies would have to raise their rates for the new class of spouse.

    So now the real question becomes how much are hetrosexuals willing to pay for the ‘right’ of homosexual couples to call themselves married.

    Now, I realise that families like Spiderleaf (and BWH) don’t have any idea how much their spouses are currently paying for their health insurance and so they choose to frame in the argument in terms of consenting lovers. The real question for them to answer is how much are you willing to pay, in terms of insurance rate hikes, to fund homosexual couples’insurance. One other question I would like to ask is this: If it came down to restricting your own childrens’health coverage in order to accommodate the “rights” of homosexual couples, would you do it?

    Nobody but nobody cares if two homosexuals want to play ‘house’. It only becomes an issue when you view it in terms og entitlements.

    Now do you see why I say….they just aren’t entitled to it.

    The same entitlement argument can be used in the case of income tax breaks.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I’m sorry I didn’t quite finish the example above.

    In the case of the spiderleaf family, rates would increase but because most at home mothers are more interested in the betty Crocker cookbook than how much the working spouse is paying for health insurance, she would not be aware of it.

    In the case of DCTTBD, I would be force to pay much more for the same basic insurance. Maybe 50 to 100 dollars more a month.

    In the case of Boomcrash….well happy days are here. His ‘family’ would cut his insurance cost by half.

    Now can you see why he is for it?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    The equality or discrimination arguments are bogus. When you see this issue in terms of self interest, it is easy to see why Boomcrashbaby thinks it would be a great idea if we let them be ‘married’.

    Homosexuals just want a free ride. Is that so hard to understand?

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    So, DCTTBD, your arguments are:

    1.That you don’t want to spend more money keeping other people healthy.

    and

    2.Women would agree with you, if they weren’t so preoccupied with cooking for you.

    What were you saying about self interest?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    Well, at least Don’t come thru the back door tried to answer The Question with something other than Leviticus 18:22, AIDS/HIV statistics or lurid descriptions of what he or she imagines gay men consent to do with one another in private.

    Don’t come through the back door has given us an economic rationalization of anti-homosexual prejudice — along with some very interesting anachronisms about women and marriage in general.

    I would be interested in learning more about the arithmetic Don’t come through the back door used to reach his or her conclusion because married and single people change jobs and health insurance coverage while they get married, divorced, widowed and re-married everyday, and none of these collective events have been demonstrated to have had an impact upon health insurance rates.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Nor has the fact that many companies offer domestic partner benefits already to same-sex couples.

    Best to leave DCTTBD/Sgt. Rock/Whatever his moniker is alone with his delusions. Let’s not feed the troll anymore.

  • Dan

    “The right to marry is not a “special” right”

    That is correct, because everyone already has that right. The “special” right would be for same sex couples to marry. There probably are circumstances where same sex heterosexual couples would benefit from a marriage, but they are denied as well.

    I dunno, maybe since society defines marriage as between opposite sex partners, a more productive avenue to skin the cat would be to challenge societies right to define ones gender. If one of the partners of a same sex union simply declared themselves the opposite sex, wouldn’t equality under the law protect that right?

    Of course, the fallout from gender switching could lead to race switching. White men might declare themselves Black women, thus avoiding combat while receiving 20 extra points on Michigan Law School applications.

  • http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/wingsofscarlet1 xjadenx

    Marriage is the legal bond of a couple, it says nothing about what genders they are essentially.

    It’s simple. There is no reason not to have same sex marriage. I have already stated myself above and no one has said anything to either a) change my mind or b) prove me wrong.

    jaden <3

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Mr Benning wrote….So, DCTTBD, your arguments are:

    1.That you don’t want to spend more money keeping other people healthy.

    and

    2.Women would agree with you, if they weren’t so preoccupied with cooking for you.

    Wrong on both accounts. It’s all about transferring one person’s costs to another. That’s what this is about.

    Margret wrote:….Well, at least Don’t come thru the back door tried to answer The Question with something other than Leviticus 18:22, AIDS/HIV statistics or lurid descriptions of what he or she imagines gay men consent to do with one another in private.

    Don’t come through the back door has given us an economic rationalization of anti-homosexual prejudice — along with some very interesting anachronisms about women and marriage in general

    Well Maggie I didn’t just try…I did in fact answer your question about ‘what harm would it cause? (if we can agree that economic cost is the same as ‘harm’). The prejudice you speak of is based upon higher cost or loss of coverage and it is a valid reason to vote against gay marriage rights. As far the as the math is concerned, the amount of economic harm is real and can be measure. It is the amount of money one has to pay, in health insurance, after the rate increase is made to include a new type of spouse. But this is only one issue. Most knuckleheads think it is the word marriage that is the problem. It’s not. It’s the word(s) legally recognized ‘spouse’ that triggers all the controversy. Income tax laws, health insurance policies, visitation rights (hospitals), inheritance laws, 401k, all entitle the ‘spouse’ to certain rights. Civil unions would make the homosexual couple ‘partners’ but not spouses….is any of this sinking in on you?????

    BHW-Nobody has their heads so far up their esoteric asses than the people who think this is about the 14th amendment. It’s all about shifting the costs (health care costs) from one class of workers to another. Please share with me how Equal protection under the laws applies. Now I know you stay at home mothers have no idea how much your spouse is paying for health insurance. So you are unable to frame the arguments up in an intelligent fashion. To you, it’s about ‘love’ and consent.

    In the examples I illustrated above, I choose two hetrosexual families intentionally. My question is this…Does Maggie’s ‘harm’ visit the housewife who thinks this is all about love and consenting adults? Certainly, a person who relizes that his/her/their insurance rates will increase if they vote/support same sex marriage rights can be said they voted with full knowledge. The housewife who clamors about the 14th amendment only demostrates ignorance of the subject.

    Perhaps, if we turned this discussion around to incude such topics as the ‘merits of breast feeding’ or the tensile strength of disposable diapers or fondue receipes, your opinions might hold some value. Perhaps you should leave subjects like this one to better minds.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Maggie wrote:I would be interested in learning more about the arithmetic Don’t come through the back door used to reach his or her conclusion because married and single people change jobs and health insurance coverage while they get married, divorced, widowed and re-married everyday, and none of these collective events have been demonstrated to have had an impact upon health insurance rates.
    and BHW wrote:Nor has the fact that many companies offer domestic partner benefits already to same-sex couples.

    You both miss the point entirely.

    Try to follow along. Because health insurance rates are based (somewhat) upon the term ‘spouse’, if the state legally recognized homosexual couples as being married, then every spouse would drop their ‘single’ insurance coverage. Even in cases where the employer utilizes the domestic partner concept. There would be no need to continue single coverage if one was covered under the other’s spouse’s ‘family’ policy. The loss of premiums would indeed trigger a rate hike. (how much is dependant upon the size of the pool and claim experienc of the ‘new ‘ pool).

    Perhaps, you are just the spouse and you are not required to obtain health insurance. In those cases, ask yourself this…If it meant that your children health insurance coverage had to be reduce because of the number of new spouses being included in your ‘pool’ would you say….it’s about two people who love each other?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Income tax laws, health insurance policies, visitation rights (hospitals), inheritance laws, 401k, all entitle the ‘spouse’ to certain rights. Civil unions would make the homosexual couple ‘partners’ but not spouses….is any of this sinking in on you?????

    You can fabricate any semantic difference you want, but you’re just plain wrong about civil unions. The point of civil unions is, in part, to convey the same legal status on same-sex partners as it does heterosexual spouses. The IRS specifically might not change its designations or tax structure, but the entire purpose for legal recognition of parters is to gain legal access to the 401Ks, insurance, inheritance, visitation rights, etc., that married couples have now.

    See the VT civil unions, for example, where same-sex “partners” are given the exact same benefits as “spouses.” Same-sex spouses get equal health insurance, life insurance, bank account access, and many other “entitlements” conferred upon married couples.

    Here’s an excerpt from the VT banking regulation:

    a party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms “spouse,” “family,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” and any other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law. The term “law” is broadly defined to include any statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law. Consequently, whenever any terms denoting a marital relationship appear in Vermont statutes or the Department’s banking regulations, they shall be construed to include the parties to a civil union. For example, parties to a civil union are entitled to hold property as tenants-by-the-entirety, and 27 V.S.A. §105, Surviving Spouse’s Interest in Homestead, is automatically amended to include the surviving party of a civil union.

    I hate to embarras you with the facts, but you’re stating a false distinction between marriage and civil unions.

    That means the *gay marriage* issue is NOT about insurance costs to straight couples. It’s about civil rights and doing away with the notion of separate but equal.

    Is that sinking in “on” you?

    Also, the biggest threat to insurance premium increases comes from the skyrocketing cost of medical care, not from some lost “individual” coverage revenues. Just ask Medicare.

    And, just for the record, I happen to know exactly what my family pays for health insurance because I chose our plan after weighing our options this past December. My husband’s company switched plans, and he deferred to my greater understanding of our family’s health coverage needs when it was time to choose.

    As a proud, self-employed, part-time stay-at-home mother, I bid you adieu.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The cost of anything in regards to whether we should vote on equality is hilarious.

    First, when the Civil Disabilities Act was passed (don’t know exactly what it’s called), that required all buildings to have accomodations for the handicapped, did anybody get to vote on whether or not they wanted to retrofit all public/government buildings, or was it a requirement? Hmmm.

    Democracy isn’t about equality only when it’s cost effective.

    Secondly, in Mass. since the Right to Marry has been given to all, there have been roughly 3 to 6 thousand marriages by my community, I don’t know the most current number. A great many of those, over 50%, are from out of state and currently have no legal weight but were symbolic.

    The premise I pose is this: how many marriages have taken place in Mass. since the ruling, by gay Mass. couples We’re talking about what, 3,000 additional marriages or less, in two years for an entire state?

    It’s been estimated that gay people are anywhere from 5-10% of the population. Assume 50% of that even want to get married, or ever do get married. The actual percentage would probably be lower.

    That’s 2.5-5% of the total population. Roughly 7-15 million people. And since it takes two to make a marriage, we are talking about a maximum of 3 – 7 million marriages, spread over roughly 50 states. How many states have amended their constitutions now? 15? That’s that many more people removed from the equation.

    Equality should be extended to all, even if one person is left out, things need to be corrected, but people need to keep in mind the numbers here. My numbers are my own guesstimates but are based on commonly assumed numbers (percentage of gay people, etc.).

    Extending the Right to Marry to everybody, as should be done, and you are probably talking about 3 million new ‘legally recognized’ families across the nation. That’s no burden, no state would probably even hit 150,000 new marriages itself, but that IS making equality available to all who choose the path of family.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Great subtefuge Bhw! In your post, you identify the IRS as one enity that entitles married couples (those that file jointly) that does not recognize Homosexual couples (as being spouses). I would suggest that State legislatures will indeed make the distinction between spouses and domestic partners (regardless of what the green mt boys do). It is only fair (to hetro sexual couples).

    Also, you needn’t go to such lengths to fabricate such an elaborate story about what you know. We both know you didn’t know the answer to the question I posed in my post. Also I take good note that you side-stepped the ‘cost’ implications of the discussion. I suspect that was intentional.

    I’m sorry Steve S., but you seem to be hung up on the equality argument. Once again, it’s not about equality. It’s about entitlement. Homosexual couples, regardless of their numbers, want the same entitlements that married couples already have. Now I have already explained the cost transfer that will occur if same sex legislation confers the title of spouse to Homosexual couples. It’s a real cost. You example seems to suggest that the cost transfer will not be burdensome to hetrosexual couples. Perhaps, you are right and perhaps you are wrong. What is certain is that health insurance cost will be halved to homosexual couples and increased to hetrosexual couples if same sex couples are considered spouse.

    I am not in the habit of predicting but unless I miss my guess, state legislatures will decide this matter along the lines of spouse and domestic partners. D.p. will be granted some rights,(those that have no cost implication) and some rights will not be granted to dp merely because of this cost argument.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    And then the *gay* guns fell silent.

    It is totally understandable. In a single post, well almost, I was able to answer the question of what harm would it cause if *gay* marriage became law. The harm it would bring is real and can be quantified.

    When you view this issue correctly, it is easy to understand why gay-loving bloggers want to talk about equality and not about the cost implications they know to be real. Hell, if I could obtain my health insurance for half of the cost, I would be for it too. It’s just that it’s intellectually dishonest to play the 14th amendment card. It’s simply a matter of wanting some entitlement for nothing. Hopefully state legislature will wake up to the cost implications and vote accordingly.

    One last question….why is the part-time mom so proud. She clearly spends more time on the internet than tending to her family’s needs.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, but don’t you think Kenny Chesney should be consulted?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Why should we consult with Kenny C?

  • Eric Olsen

    you’d have to read the thread

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    For all you people who preach about equal treatment under the law-How is the rate increase caused gay marriages fair to the poor?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    how is the rate increase caused by lack of insurance fair to everybody?

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    The board falls silent for a day and someone gets bored and desperate. Keep digging for buttons to push DCTTBD.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments predicted people (consumers) would act in their own economic best interests if given a free market society.

    That’s is really what’s going on when you look at the same sex marriage issue. You see, homosexual couples would love to have their health insurance rates halved while at the same time increasing their coverage. Conversely, hetrosexuals health insurance rates would increase while their coverage would remain static. In a nut shell, it is simply not in any hetrosexual’s economic best interests to grant homosexuals the same rights given to married couples.

    To those who claim there is no reason not to grant homosexuals these rights, I offer this argument in the hope they will be advised their statement is false and intellectually dishonest.

  • jaden

    So, you’d like to take away the right from an entire group of people so you can have a little bit more money.

    Shut up.
    jaden <3

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    And then the *Gay* guns fell silent.

    You once had so much to say….the fight for love and/or the right to play ‘house’…yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.

    Just for the hell of it, let’s take Steve S’s numbers and see what happens.

    Assume 10% of 275 million americans. Thats about 28 million. Insurance rates are concerned with the ‘potential’ costs, that is the maximum numbers of same sex couples that would be affected by this new defintion of spouse. Let’s assume 50% but let’s use 75% as a maximum or top end of the range. So there would nearly 15 to 20 million homosexuals that would be affected by any rate decrease. I would like to suggest that when this many rate payers change their status from single to spouse, it would indeed affect the rates that everyone else is paying. This is simply a cost transfer. From homosexual workers to hetrosexual workers. Nothing more.

    Secondly, the new class of spouse brings with it significant higher medical costs. (homosexuals inccur higher medical cost than their hetrosexual counterparts). Again, this will raise rate (insurance) for all hetrosexuals.

    Now I ask any intelligent person, why should any hetrosexual pay more in health insurance while their coverage remains static or even decreases? Certainly, it can be said that this is not in their best economic interests.

    Poor Jaden. You are pathetically mixed up. What you blabbering about? Whose taking money from who?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    All I can say is when we are in court, battling for our rights, if our opponent was using ‘cost effectiveness’ as the reason for denying equal access to a social instution, we would all be married by now.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    So you think homosexuals health insurance rates should be supplemented by hetrosexuals?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Basically, DCTTBD, I don’t buy your logic at all, any more than I buy the fact that you feel the need to advertise that your ass is unavailable.

    In Mass. since gay marriage has been allowed, there have been roughly 3,000 gay marriages by the state. There is no record of it having impact on rates. In European countries where gay couples can get married and where the state picks up a higher cost of health care, I can find no record of it having any impact on costs.

    So basically, I dismiss your whole line of thought as garbage. Even if you could prove your claims, which you cannot, equality is not determined by cost. Period.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    You choose not buy into the logic. I can understand why. It’s because you know your household health insurance rates will fall if you are allowed to become a spouse. Just because your ‘research’ fell short, doesn’t mean it’s not valid. Make no mistake about it. If same sex couples are given the same rights as hetrosexual couples, then insurance rates for homosexuals will decrease while the rates for hetrosexual will increase. You say the state picks up the difference in the rates for homosexual in Europe, well isn’t that the same as hetrosexuals picking up more cost without any increase in their coverage or are just playing a game. You know it is intellitectually dishonest to play the equality card and yet because you are unable to mount an intelligent counter-argument, you resort to it. I’ll spell it out to you again. It has nothing to do with equality. Nowhere in my post do I even mention it. I don’t need to. It’s all about entitlement. Homosexuals want the same entitlements that are granted to hetrosexual couples. They are simply not entitled to the same rights because of the ‘costs’ engendered by the granting of those rights. If there were no costs associated by the granting of these rights, you might be able to use the tiring equality argument. But this is not the case! There are costs associated and that my queer friend makes all the difference in the world.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You say the state picks up the difference in the rates for homosexual in Europe

    No, I didn’t.

    It has nothing to do with equality. Nowhere in my post do I even mention it.

    I see. So I don’t know what I am fighting for, but you do. Thank you for the information.

    They are simply not entitled to the same rights because of the ‘costs’

    okey dokey.

  • Don’t come thru the Back Door

    I am sorry if you suddenly realized that you were full of shit! Okey Dokey.

    Let me see, what part of my argument are you having trouble with….

    Perhaps it’s the part where health insurance costs will rise for hetrosexuals. Well certainly you can see if 14 million workers quit paying their ‘single’ insurance rates (approximately 200 dollars per month or 2400 dollars per year, it would have an adverse impact on the rates for the rest of the pool. Right? While the rates decline, the medical costs or claim costs would remain the same. Actually medical cost/claims would rise due to the fact that spouses that never had any insurance before would be added to the pool(s). This increase in claims would justify a rate increase (to be be paid by hetrosexuals).

    Conversely, homosexual couples would enjoy better coverage for half of the cost they are now paying for health insurance.

    This is where the rubber meets the road. It’s not about equality. If it were about equality, then homosexual couples would pursue rights they are entitled to and would drop their rightous claims for the rights they are simply not entitled to. Period.

    Steve S pertends to hide behind the pinafores and says: So I don’t know what I am fighting for, but you do.

    That’s right Steve, you don’t know what you are talking about, any more than those goofball part time mothers who argued it was all about Equal treatment under the law.

    One last item for you to consider. Imagine a single wage earner who purchases dependant coverage thru his employer. Now imagine if domestic partners recieved identical rights as spouses. Further suppose that this did indeed cause a rate hike, (as I predicted). Because of the increase in insurance, the wage earner had to decrease coverage or drop it altogether. Where is there equal treatment under the law for the single wage earner?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You shouldn’t worry, it doesn’t sound like the coverage for mental health insurance is going to change.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Steve S-seriously, is that the best you can muster? Perhaps you should let the *gay* guns fall silent. It would prove to be less embarassing to the losing cause.

    I’m sorry if the facts get in the way of your fantasy of becoming just like Ken & Barbie.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You and I define democracy differently.

    Perhaps you should let the *gay* guns fall silent. It would prove to be less embarassing to the losing cause.

    Losing cause? Nonsense, we won in Hawaii, we won in Alaska, we won in Mass., we are expected to win in Calif., it’s just that when we win, the only thing you all can do is rewrite historical documents to make you win. But like prohibition, those aren’t necessarily permanent.

    I’m sorry if the facts get in the way of your fantasy

    Facts of what, health care? There are no facts there, you have presented no souces just irrationality off the top of your head, there are no facts.

    And no, I’m not going to be silent about my equality just because I don’t have the time to debate something as asinine as your premise.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Boy are you confused. Eleven states voted down same sex rights amendments in Nov. Judges in Calif have resinded all the same sex marriages in that state. The gov in Mass wants to stop the noise in that state. So tell me buttercup, just where did ‘you’ win????

    You state that you and I have different views of democracy. That’s subtrfuge and you know it! Speak to the issues. You pathetically glom onto the equality argument well after I have dissproved your theory. It is because you are unable to muster any assembalnce of a logical argument against my ‘not in anyone’s economic best interests’ position.

    I’m sorry if you failed to think it thru. I’m sorry if you made a whoopsie and now realize your arguments are bogus. I take good note that you and that ‘merry band of fools’ you lead around bypassed every one of my arguments, every question I raised. Is it coincidence. I think not! It’s because you know what I say is right and you cannot deal with the truth of it all.

    You claim that you will not hold your tongue even though you now know you are full of shit. That’s fine by me. Your arguments about equality are bogus and I will punch holes in them as if they were wet tissue paper. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that you or any of your follows will speak or even attempt to address the arguments or questions I raise in my posts. There is a definite reason for it, Buttercup.

    Again, you blindly lash out at me as an individual. Listen up close….I did not re-write any historical document. I did not vote against same sex marriages. I did not resind the 4000 calif marriages. You must have me mistaken for another.

    I simply spoke to the issue of why *Gay* marriages should not be allowed. I support my argument with logical premises (something you have failed to do).

    At the end of the blinkin bloggin day, the issue remains: 1. Homosexuals want something they are not entitled to. 2. It is not in any hetrosexual’s economic best interests to allow homosexual couples to become spouses.

    I dare you to address these premises.

  • Eric Olsen

    “Don’t,” what exactly is your point in all this? Do you have any policy principles to forward or do you just hate gays?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Why Eric….I don’t hate gays! Where in the world did you get that notion? I will admit that I don’t suffer fools very well and therein lies the rub.

  • Eric Olsen

    so do gays=fools?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    some are and some might not be.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Boy are you confused. Eleven states voted down same sex rights amendments in Nov. Judges in Calif have resinded all the same sex marriages in that state. The gov in Mass wants to stop the noise in that state. So tell me buttercup, just where did ‘you’ win????

    As I said, we win in the court systems, where equality has always been determined before. When we win, you all put it to a vote, and then you all vote to rewrite historical documents to exclude gays and lesbians from equality.

    You pathetically glom onto the equality argument well after I have dissproved your theory

    You disprove my theory? No, see the Hawaii, the Alaska, the Mass. court rulings to start with, you haven’t disproved anything. My ‘theory’ has been upheld in a court of law. DCTTBD does not supercede court rulings.

    On the other hand, I seriously doubt that you or any of your follows will speak or even attempt to address the arguments or questions I raise in my posts. There is a definite reason for it, Buttercup.

    Of course we will not attempt to address them, they are foolish and time wasters.

    I support my argument with logical premises

    If you cannot see the stupidity of analyzing the cost effectiveness of equality, and you think that is logical, then there is no point debating with you. There is nothing logical about your premise to begin with.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Steve S- you are a joke! You say that I do not supercede court rulings. Ok I guess it can be equally said that you do not supercede logic. It is not my intent to supercede the courts. I just want people to see the issue as it really is. My arguments hit every working person in the pocketbook, every payday, every year. It is a real cost. As I have said before, nobody cares about gay couples playing ‘house’. It is because there is not a cost suffered by hetrosexuals so we remain indifferent. But this is not the case with health insurance. Hetrosexuals would (economically) suffer if we (or the courts) granted homosexual couples the same rights as hetrosexuals. Period.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    It is because there is not a cost suffered by hetrosexuals so we remain indifferent.

    oh, so what you are saying is that when voters go to the booths and vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, they aren’t doing it because of some perceived notion of ‘saving’ anything other than their pocketbook.

    Okay, I can buy that.

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    DCTTBD, please explain your name.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Apparrently, there are many reasons why people the way they did. I personally don’t agree with all of them, however that is not the point. I only raise the economic issue because: a)I beliexe it to a valid concern 2) nobody else raised it here on this thread.

    There are some ‘rights’ that do follow the cost argument. Hospital visitation right are one of them. I remain indifferent as to whether homosexual couples get that right or not. Granting that right to them will not affect my pocketbook. But this is not the case for health insurance and/or income tax rates. These ‘rights’ have certain cost aspects that must be considered by all voters, legislaturors and judges.

    It’s all dependant of the costs and who must pay.

  • Don’t come thru the Back Door

    mrbenning-you go first.

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    Two initials, representing Michael Richard, and my last name, Benning.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I was under the assumption it meant one prefers to give oral.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Now you’re gonna make him change his name Steve!

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    This seems to be a very popular thread.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    My ‘handle’ refers to the effort that we mustn’t let anyone ‘hoodwink’ us for rights they are not entitled to.

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    So, DCTTBD, coming “thru the back door” is a metaphor representing someone’s attempt at a “hoodwink”?

  • Eric Olsen

    and a third meaning would stem from Willie Dixon’s song

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    It doesn’t matter what one says, Steve S will always interpret it as a *gay* reference.

    I know this will come as a shock to you but words like ‘back door,’ gay, queer, Nancy and fruitcake have other meanings than the homosexual connotation.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Yes, but they aren’t near as much fun to visualize.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Steve S-Thanks for validating my comments!

    Michael Richard Benning- How very clever!

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    I’ll let my mom know that you like it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    validating what?

    I have seen reports that said that men think of sex every 7 seconds. It wasn’t limited to orientation, but gender.

    I play around with your words abit, and you are going to use it to substantiate what exactly? That everything I think of is sexually based? Nonsense, I do that because it makes some people uncomfortable and shuts them up.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Steve S- you validated my comment “It doesn’t matter what one says, Steve S will always interpret it as a *gay* reference.”

    I’m still waiting for your arguments refuting my premises or have the *gay* guns fallen silent again?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    My argument is that equal treatment and recognition from the government has never been based on cost, should never be based on cost, and most likely will never be based on cost.

    I rest my case, having completely refuted any premise suggesting otherwise.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Steve S- you validated my comment

    And as you are, I am also convinced that it’s just me and not a single heterosexual out there thought your name brought up connotations of ‘ass’.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I wish it were that easy! Your utter rejection of the cost implications renders your opinion bias and therefore unreliable. Of course, it is easy to understand why Steve S refuses to believe there are any costs associated with the grant of the spousal rights to domestic partners. Let’s look at his particulars….In his ‘household’ each domestic partner must work to obtain health care. Each partner pays into the same pool as the other workers do. He realizes that if he is considered a spouse he will be entiltled to included on his domestic partner’s health insurance and he will be able to ‘drop’ the current coverage his must purchase separately. Now I ask any intelligent person, is it that hard to see why Steve S wants the same entitlements as married couples. By the same token, all the hetrosexuals in the same insurance pool as Steve S will see their health insurance rates go up while they will see their coverage either remain static or even decrease. Again I ask any intelligent person, is it that hard to see why it is not in the best interests of any hetrosexual?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I would also appreciate it very much if you would call me by my full name and not some set of intitials. It’s an ‘indian thing’ with me

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    There are more than a few heterosexuals out here, who find it is more beneficial to each go with their own insurance than with joint. It’s not always a better deal. Your premise that spousal health benefits are always the preferred is erroneous to begin with.

  • HW Saxton

    Yo D.C.T.T.B.D., Do you and Fred Phelps
    carpool into work in the morning?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Well I’ll be….I finally got you to drop that bogus ‘equality’ argument. Well at least you accept the notion that domestic partners would have an option to continue with their own insurance or with the dependant coverage of their partner’s. It’s a start.

    Now it’s just a hop skip and then a jump to the entitlement argument I have made above.

    Welcome aboard, convert!

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    Is anyone else getting dizzy from this revolving door argument?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    Perhaps Mrs Benning’s little boy should take a seat and be still and leave the debating to better minds.

    What clever things do you have for us today Michael Richard Benning?

  • http://mike.shelikesit.net mrbenning

    I was just noting that it was a dead argument. And DCTTBD (I’ll abbreviate when I feel like it), not budging doesn’t mean that you’re arguing well.

    As a matter of fact, throughout your unsupported posts, aside from a lame Adam Smith quote that a five year old could figure out, you’ve only made one argument.

    “Your utter rejection of the cost implications renders your opinion bias and therefore unreliable.”

    What about the fact that your entire argument is based on a presupposition?

    Based on your previous posts, you seem to have forgotten that millions of Americans are without health coverage right now. Not just the homosexual ones. You also assume that every heterosexual (notice the spelling, it might help your credibility) married couple is going to drop their individual health coverage for a family plan. That’s based on an assumption that they all have children and a dual plan would actually help out. What makes you assume that’s the case?

    I find it funny that you pointed out that you didn’t vote against gay marriage in California. You didn’t say that you voted for it either.

    “Apparrently, there are many reasons why people the way they did. I personally don’t agree with all of them, however that is not the point. I only raise the economic issue because: a)I beliexe it to a valid concern 2) nobody else raised it here on this thread.”

    Ignoring your poor grasp on the english language, I find it strange that you seem to be speaking for a majority of heterosexuals in the united states. It might be a “valid concern” if the threat, as you seem to see it, were imminent. And yes, nobody else brought it up. Thanks for beating it into the ground.

    The reason why I only chime in and say “clever things” is because I don’t have the hours on end to flog an expired beast as you have shown you have. Your stamina is amazing, I will admit, but your argument is dead. You haven’t said anything new.

    Oh yeah, thanks for thinking of my mom, but her last name isn’t Benning. Some people’s lives aren’t as black and white as others.

  • http://home.earthlink.net/~mossback1973/mossbacksindex/ Roy Smith

    Why don’t we stop calling the legal contract “marriage” and instead establish it as a “domestic partnership” for any pair of consenting adults (gay or straight) who wishes it?

    Leave marriage to the churches, and they can figure out who they want to sanction.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I’m not sure if any of the *gay* guns had a chance to read today’s paper or not. If they did, they would know that Kansas has added it’s name to the list of states opposed to granting same sex couples the rights already given to married couples. Another victory I dare say! That makes 13 to zero!

    Even Steve S now acknowledges Adam Smith’s prediction that consumers, regardless of their orientation, will pursue their own economic self interests in a free market society. So it comes as no surprise why homosexuals (check my spelling on that word will ya) are all for recieving benefits they do not have to pay for. Similarly, if we are to accept Mr Smith’s theory, heterosexuals (check out the spelling) will vote against any same sex amendment because it is not in their economic best interests to do so.

    Michael Richard Benning-so sorry to hear your mother has moved on to green pastures. She did get one thing right though….She gave you the middle name of ‘Dick”. She knew what she was doing.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    mrbenning thought I am speaking for a majority of heterosexuals in america. Heavens no! I only speak for myself.

    I couldn’t help but notice the confusion fostered by some when they tried to link this issue up with ‘equality’. I only want to show any intelligent person that there are cost implications to be considered in the granting of rights to homosexual couples. To ignore the cost implications would be assinine…not the other way around.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    After several weak attempts to argue otherwise, the gay guns have fallen silent. They had to. They simply were unable to overcome the cost implications of granting same sex couples with the same rights granted to married couples. In fact when you study the issue up close, you too will conclude….it just ain’t worth it!

  • Don’t Come thru the back door

    Is there anyone who doubts Adam Smith’s prediction of consumers always following their own self interests?

    If you do believe, then it is not too hard for anyone to believe that health care costs will rise if we allow homosexual couples to have the same rights as married couples.

    The real question all heterosexuals should be asking is….How much would I be willing to pay out of my own pocket to allow homosexuals the same rights as married couples?

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I see where another state is considering banning gay marriage. That makes 17 now right?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    No Comment 170. Don’t you see there will be no elections on the matter. Liberals don’t like elections they know won’t go their way.

  • Don’t come thru the back door

    I suppose it is true Anthony. Still it remains that this issue will come to a vote in 06. The gov already agrees that the legislature goofed.

  • Anthony Grande

    Oh Good, this means Gay Marriage won’t exist there either. Thank the Lord

  • http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com aaron jason silver

    Is marriage a religious institution?

    I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
    We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.

    We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?

    Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

    Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.

    Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.

  • http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com aaron jason silver

    As I follow the progress or lack of progress for gay marriage as I do daily, I am conintually astounded at the lack of reason that the opponents of gay marriage use. One of them is that gay marriage is a religious institution. If this were indeed so then why are athiest allowed to marry? The other that I find very interesting is that it is so often said,”we have to draw the line somewhere”. Somewhere? Why here I wonder? The arguement seems to be that if we don’t we will perhaps then start allowing poligamy and marriage to children or animals. If they would just stop this knee jerk reaction because of their fears of the unknown but instead use the power of reason which we all have if we practice at it and use it. The reason why we would not allow poligamy or marriage to children is really quite simple. It causes victims. Poligamist marriages would not exist if all woman realized their intrinsic value and would not fall prey to mesagionistic religious dogma that continually brainwashes them into believing that they are second class citizens. They don’t need a man to survive in this world if they understand their value and become formally educated so as not to have to be subserviant to men for survival. This practice of polygamist marriages also causes a large majority of these families to live in poverty and also does irrepreable damage to children which has been very well researched by professionals. Do I even need to discuss why the marriage to children would not happen? I would hope not but evidently since I have heard the argument often enough I will. These children would obviously to ALL reasonable people suffer the greatest of victimizations of all,causing deep and everlasting wounds. Our society already has very clear and severe laws agains pedephilia and pedastry. This would not happen. Obviously their sincere concern for the welfare of animals is touching but the last time I checked in order to marry, both parties have to be in agreement. I have yet to see an animal able to sign forms or make decisions of this kind. I hope the points that I have made are clear and understood and it has helped quell some fears and that there would not be a complete and utter breakdown of moral values within our society. We seem to leave that one for our president and his administration to do. What I would like to know now is that if there are any other concerns that the opponents of gay marriage may have and maybe someone else can help me help them understand the ridulousness of their thinly veiled concerns that are actually just about homophobia and nothing more. Thank you, Aaron Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com

  • Graham McKnight

    The author of this article needs to re-think their convictions. Suppression of homosexual relationships cause society more harm than good, history has taught us this.

    Victorian society supressed even hetrosexual relationships in public, which saw an explosion in the number of brothel houses etc.

  • Paige

    How is it wrong for Gay’s to marry? Who are you to say this? People are thinking like this because of the bible. Want to know something? The bible was written many many years ago! Isn’t it common sense that it is very very outdated? Gay’s marrying wont have a bad affect on the world, it’ll improve it! They deserve to get married and one day it will be legal! I am a 17 year old girl writing an essay on gay marriage, and the comments i have seen about people discriminating against gays is absolutely astonishing. You people have no right! How would you feel if someone did that to you? They have every right to love each other. They love each other just as much as every body else loves some one. Gay’s go through so much. They are bullied everywhere they go, and for what…because of their sexuality? People have got to stop being so ignorant. Tell me, what has a gay EVER done to you?