Yesterday, the celebrations began...NY has approved gay marriage. The latest polls tend to show the most Americans support the right...what about on here?
How long will it be before the christians (lower case deliberate - I know there are real christians who support gay rights)
As I was saying, there are lower-case christians who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent equal rights... and at some point they will change their tune AND pretend they were for equality all along.
As a gay man who has been with his partner for 6 years, I am fine with civil unions. All that matters is that it is the same for everyone. Seperate is not equal, that is what the Supreme Court said in Brown v. Board of Education
I am very, very proud of my state. Now, more than twice as many people have the legal right to marry same-sex partners as did before.
i'm Canadian but i have often wondered why the U.S. doesn't approve gay marriages. who the heck gave the government the right to tell people that are in love, of legal age that they can't get married. kind of strange for a country that promotes freedom of choice and all that stuff.
I'm glad. I don't think anyone should dictate who a consenting adult chooses to marry. I'm heterosexual and don't know why. I don't feel I can control that, I must assume it is the same for homosexual and bisexual individuals as well. In fact, I would guess that if what we want are solid marriages and strong families, then supporting who ever is willing to make the committment is the wisest course of action.
I personally don't have a problem with any segment of society (unless violent of course). However, marriage is a deep-seeded fabric of this nation. For many it defines the very foundation of the family. If the homosexual community wants the privilege (note I use "privilege" instead of "right") then why not accept the phrase of "union" instead of marriage. To demand the umbrella of marriage will only foster hatred and fear. If acceptance is what's wanted then have the courage to accept a title other than marriage. Gays say it's not right to be excluded from the union of marriage yet it's not right to demand that heterosexuals accept it. There are no winners here even in New York.
This hatred has and will continue to bleed blood just as racism has. We, as a people, need to stop adopting the personal "victim" mentality. This makes us believe we are "entitled" to certain privileges which we think are rights. They are not rights and demanding the judicial system to deem them as rights will solve nothing.
Over half of marriages end in divorce. Historically, it was a brutal exchange or property, and even farther back, was bred out of kidnapping women from different villages and forcing them, raping them. In our recent past, women were considered property of their husbands upon marriage. Yeah...quite a foundation there. The fact is, the "hate" you discuss is YOUR hate of THEM. Where in history has marriage been anything other than a right? So, if the government claimed that only gay people can marry, would you consider it a "right" then?
I've been arguing for years that the federal and state governments should stop recognizing "marriage" altogether and switch the term to "civil union" for both straight and gay couples, with equal rights, responsibilities, and privileges for both.
Then couples - straight or gay - who want the religious distinction of "marriage" can find a church/synagogue/mosque willing to marry them, and the whole question of the definition of "marriage" can go back to the churches where it belongs.
I've had the same thought before. "Marriage" in the legal sense is nothing more than a civil contract. If anything, the state part of it DETRACTS from the spiritual significance.
The civil questions and issues are completely different from the religious ones.
I don't need a priest to bless a business contract.
Yup, exactly. I'm not very religious and could care less about that aspect of marriage. I just wanted to be able to get on my husband's insurance plan with a minimum of obnoxious paperwork. I believe very strongly that committed gay and lesbian couples deserve the same opportunity, regardless of whether they're lucky enough to live in NY or not.
People who do care about the religious aspect don't get religious recognition from the government anyway, and if they really feel so threatened by the concept of same sex marriage, they can get married in a church that forbids it, while gay and lesbian couples can track down any of the many churches that DO want to perform same sex marriages and are currently prevented from doing so by homophobic state laws.
Getting government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business is a win-win situation for everybody involved as far as I can see.
i bless thee contract until i dont want you any more!
"I don't need a priest to bless a business contract."
That's cool, but what if a gay couple wanted a priest to bless their union, and found one who was willing to do it. Shouldn't they be allowed to be married by their willing priest?
That's exactly how I feel. I have no trouble whatsoever with gay civil unions.
Do you think the government should also only issue heterosexual civil unions with identical legal provisions...
And let any church perform whatever service they like and call it anything they want.
So when the JP (I am not religious) married my wife and I we would have gotten a "Civil Union Contract" to frame and hang on the wall rather than a Certificate of Marriage.
My wife and I are planning to renew our wedding vows, with an emphasis on being "One to the world, 35 years now and for the rest of our lives". Or some such sloppy sentiment.
Somehow the "Civil Union Contract" and the "legally contracted for 35 years and forever" doesn't carry the same weight as the older version. The same sentiment. The same emotional "gotcha".
How about if we have the priests issue a "God's Commandment to Live Together" if they wish to be different and let the courts continue to same old ratty "marriage certificate" they always have?
This is an argument that someone can't really win. If I say that I agree that everyone should be allowed to contract a civil UNION, but that not everyone should be allowed to marry, I'm a bigot.
Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacrament. Nothing is likely to change that belief.
Yes, put the way you put it, it wouldn't carry the same emotional weight. But, should that certificate read that the two parties entered into UNION on such and such a date, it would carry a greater emotional and spiritual (for those of that bent who wish not to go to church) weight all around.
For those of us who think that marriage by its present definition is a sacrament reserved for those of the opposite sex, there is no way for us to support the issue in the eyes of the secular world OR the Church.
There really is no further need for discussion, however, as the law has been passed. What difference does my opinion make? The law is the law. At this point, it is simply a matter of semantics. Personally, I wouldn't wish to call it marriage. I do however wish to see to the law passed.
You're right - the law has been passed and what we say or think won't change that.
Motown, you show a rare (for these forums) understanding and empathy, though. When we got married I was of the opinion that the paper meant nothing outside of the legal ramifications (insurance, first of kin issues, inheritance, etc.) but I have come to realize differently. It does carry an emotional meaning for me and I am always proud to introduce my spouse as such - I believe it adds to what I am as well.
At the same time marriage as an institution is not what it was. I view marriage in the old sense - two people as one, forever - and all the divorces in the world won't change that. My view of marriage is thus not the norm anymore. Nevertheless, I would not like to have to change the word to anything else. To call a gay union a marriage can't change the way I view marriage - it can only be a further recognition that the word has an even wider meaning to some than it has had in the past. In some ways it is a compliment that others find the concept valuable and want it for themselves.
Can you understand this and accept that gays want as close to the same thing you have as they can get, even if it is technically different (a different religious aspect) and allow them the same pride and happiness? Any name change degrades the concept for those that want the older idea of this commitment to another person, but the changes that have occurred have already made the concept something that it was not. Can it really degrade your own feelings of what you have to see another possibility for that wonderful thing called marriage? A public recognition of the love that two people share?
Thank you for the kind words, wilderness. I try very hard to be understanding and empathetic to everyone. I share exactly your view of marriage as well. And, in all honesty, it doesn't degrade my feelings about marriage at all to know that others want to live the same way, and want a public recognition of a love such as the one shared by me and my husband. Where I face a challenge, to be honest, is in what it's called.
First, let's look at the fact that unless you're a believer in some sort of religion, marriage is no more than a civil contract anyway. If you are of a religious bent, then it becomes about what you call it - not what it actually is in practice. For example, if I were an atheist, I would be "married" in a courthouse. If I were a Catholic, I would view marriage as a sacramental and spiritual union between one man and one woman meant to last forever. If I were any sort of different believer, I might view it in any number of ways.
But, when it boils down to it, marriage is a union between two people, whether civil or sacramental. It has however, since its inception, been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Without changing the definition of the word, it is possible to grant everyone the right to share the same kind of union, by calling it simply that - a union. Then gay couples can be united in the same way as any married couple - without the religious/spiritual element being present.
Should they choose to have that union blessed in the spiritual institution of their choice, so be it. For me, it's not at all about denying anyone the right to love as they choose, or even about feeling that it threatens the institution of marriage. It's simply that a same sex union is different from the union of a man and a woman, therefore, it should have its own word and definition - a synonym if you will. Does that make sense?
"First, let's look at the fact that unless you're a believer in some sort of religion, marriage is no more than a civil contract anyway".
I would very highly disagree with this statement. That civil contract is the small part of what I view my marriage to be, and I suspect you feel the same. My marriage is a statement to the world of my devotion. That my wife and I choose to live life together, It is a statement of our word - a contract that comes from us not the state. I would have to point out as well that the concept and practice of marriage has existed through man's various cultures with and without religion playing a large role.
My own feelings on the matter would be just the same as yours, in fact, except that for the religious the sacrament end is secondary for those truly wishing to be married. My vows were to another person, not to God, and so were theirs. They may have been made before God, and God may very well accept and bless the marriage, but that marriage and what it is about is to a spouse and so is the commitment.
A union could just as well be the co-joining of two companies for the express purpose of making a profit. Or a political mingling of separate entities to maintain power.
I can understand that. I know that nothing takes away from my devotion to my husband should a same sex couple choose to pursue the same kind of devotion to one another.
My only objection I suppose is to the word marriage being used to define something that hasn't changed its definition in centuries. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea, or the practice, to be honest. I suppose I just feel that they should have separate names to show the differences between the couples. Because I am Catholic, and marriage is very much a sacramental commitment not only to my husband, but to God as well.
I'll admit to struggling a bit with it because of my religious beliefs AND because I have several close friends who are gay, and I understand their feelings on the issue.
It's certainly a conversation that could go on for a good, long time. And, unfortunately, unless you just say yes or no, there's no real easy answer.
I refuse to say no, but I suppose that I want yes with qualifications, you know?
It is indeed a difficult question as it is nearly 100% concerned with personal feelings and emotions, not with reason.
For myself, I find that marriage has changed so dramatically from what it used to be that I must define the word for myself. What I meant by marriage is so far from what most people mean today that the (comparatively) small addition of gays is hardly worth mentioning.
It is quite possible that if the meaning of the word had not changed (as I view it) I would agree with you. I find that it has changed, though, from the deep seated conviction and promises to little more than an acceptable road to "legal" sex that is thrown away at the drop of a hat. Therein may lie the differences in our emotional disagreement.
Neither view is "right" and it is doubtful that either will change. It is enough that both would like to see others have the right to experience what we have. I tip my hat to your understanding and sympathy for other, different, peoples. We are all on this ball of dirt together - let us get along and support each other.
I suppose more than anything it's my feeling that marriage should be made to be what it has always been meant to be. I agree that it has changed dramatically over the years. My husband and I have been married for three years, and have literally gone through hell. If not for our commitment to God and each other and our personal belief that marriage does indeed encompass a promise to God, we might have never survived. I can honestly say that the average 21st century under our circumstances would have ended less than a year in. That's sad, imo.
Thanks for the tip of the hat. I have been blessed to know so many good people of every walk of life. More than anything, I just wish them all happiness, no matter what I may feel personally. If it doesn't hurt anyone, I don't understand why it should be such a huge issue.
I guess I'm just torn, and as a natural born peacemaker, wish we could find a way to please everyone.
You do realize that the Catholic Church will still not recognize gay marriages?
Like they do not recognize marriages between divorced people.
Each church can decide whether a civil marriage is "legal" in their eyes or not. My synagogue does.
I do realize that, nor do I believe they should. If you'd seen some of my earlier posts, you might have seen that I believe in civil unions for gay couples, but I do not believe they should be called marriages. The Church may not recognize a gay marriage. They have no responsibility to do so.
And you can continue to not consider them marriages even though they very much are so under the law.
That was my point about the Catholic Church's stand on divorced couples. Do you consider two divorced, heterosexual non-Catholics who marry each other to be a married couple?
In the eyes of the law, yes...in the eyes of the Church, no. According to Church law, a divorced individual must seek and obtain an annulment prior to remarriage. If they do so, they may freely remarry in the Church. Unless and until they do so, their marriage (according to Church law) is considered illicit.
Yes, I understood that part. I was actually asking whether you considered that type of couple married or not (i.e. do you use the Catholic Church's definition or the civil one).
I see both, actually. I consider the coupled married in the eyes of civil law. Until they have received an annulment, I do not consider their marriage sacramental. I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood that you were asking for my personal opinion.
@motown - I, too, wish we could please everyone. It ain't gonna happen though - there are just far too many people that seem to live only to control everyone else around them. Perhaps someday, but that will be far, far beyond my lifetime. In the meantime I will continue the promote the idea of live and let live. Peace among all, just as you do.
@livelonger - separate issue - how is you can reply to motown and I can't? I continually find that the "reply" button is gone, but others can still reply? What am I not seeing or doing wrong?
Not sure. Are you using the threaded or chronological view? I use the latter, and see the reply button.
And that's it. I use the threaded view and it has no reply button. This chronological view does. Thanks!
And yet, you must ultimately reconcile yourself to the fact that we have freedom of religion in the United States, that establishment of a state religion is unconstitutional, and the issue of who may marry varies from faith to faith and denomination to denomination.
No religion should perform marriages it cannot theological support, and no religion *does* -- even before gay marriage. Did you know, for example, that Orthodox rabbis do not perform marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew? The sacrament of Jewish marriage, in their view, can only exist between two Jews.
My point is that the law does not, and CANNOT, require a clergyperson to perform a marriage in violation of his or her doctrinal requirements.
Yet our pluralistic and FREE society means there must be room for many different beliefs about what constitutes sacredness, and the state must not favor one view over another.
I agree that "marriage" sounds nicer than "civil union" but people get so hung up on the terminology ("marriage has always been between one man and one woman blah blah" - ignoring the fact, for the moment, that this is simply not true) that I simply don't see any way around it at the present time.
As a strong supporter of gay rights, it's not acceptable to me that they have unequal rights in regards to their ability to legally commit to the (consenting adult) partner of their choice, so I'd rather dump the controversial language than wait until society progresses to the point that people no longer see "gay marriage" as some sort of threat to the sanctity of the concept.
I think a "Certificate of Union" might be a reasonable compromise that sounds nicer than "Civil Union Contract" and conveys some of the same implications as "Certificate of Marriage", without angering any but the most intractable opponents of equal rights for gays and lesbians. If - under my solution proposed above - people really wanted a "Certificate of Marriage" to hang on the wall or whatever, perhaps they could be issued by churches, synagogues, etc.
The problem, kerry, is that there are dozens and dozens of laws and statutes applying to marriage; dozens of rights afforded by them. Civil unions don't encompass all of these and cannot, since they exist on so many different books in so many different places.
I would love you point out some of those supposed difference, which are unable to be made the same?
It's a web of law, all covered under the name "marriage" or "spouse." Everything from health care proxy to inheritance to immigration rights.
Here's a summary: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding … rriage.htm
This one compares the number of legal benefits of marriage (over a thousand) and of civil unions (300): http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarr … rriage.htm
This article from FactCheck.org is a good analysis: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
But that doesn't answer my question.
My question was asking....what would not be able to turn to fit gay/lesbian marriages?
All you did was tell me what spouse or marriage already gets. Everything in place can be adjusted to fit any other marriage situation. Which is my point to begin with.
I don't understand your point. *What* could be "turned"? Do you mean civil unions could be redefined to fit those existing laws?
You're literally talking about rewriting dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individual local, state, and federal laws and statutes to squeeze another category in. It couldn't and wouldn't happen. That's not how laws are changed.
The obvious solution is to allow same sex couples to marry. It is fair. It is equitable. It harms no one. It deprives no one of any rights. It just bothers some people. So what? Miscegenation also bothered people.
If 500 laws allow for A or B, do you change 500 laws to squeeze in C? Or do you simply expand the definition of A ONCE? Which is smarter? More efficient? More sensible?
The word "marriage" would be eliminated or inclusive to all, otherwise it has no value.
Actually you are wrong. Laws are constantly changed to suit the best interest of society. So, the above statement holds no ground.
The only people it bothers are those of the religious sort. If the religious sort knew and understood their role in society, then they would be able to understand that it isn't in the best interest of society, that they be against equal rights.
It the simple fact that you take whatever course is best. That's my point. If you have to change 500 laws, then do so. If you don't have to, then don't. My point was that any laws pertaining to marriage can be suited for anyone regardless of sexual orientation/preference.
Oh, I agree absolutely. In one of my earlier posts I argued that state and federal governments should give all couples - gay and straight - a civil union with the same rights and privileges that are currently granted to married couples, and the government should not use the term marriage at all, for anybody.
As a Unitarian Universalist, I'd like to say
Don't assume all churches are anti-gay!
When one segment of society is afforded legal benefits that another segment is denied, this is a violation of equal protection under the law as guaranteed under the constitution.
Tax benefits, health care decisions, inheritance rights, property transfer rights, and other next of kin status and more constitute a set of legal rights afforded to some but not to others.
"Marriage" is the legal procedure by which a non-blood relative is made next of kin to create this set of rights. "Civil union" is a patchwork of laws designed to replicate some of those rights imperfectly.
"Separate but equal" has already been deemed unconstitutional.
"When one segment of society is afforded legal benefits that another segment is denied, this is a violation of equal protection under the law"
Pedophiles could say the same thing. Couldn't they?
No, because no one has the right to exploit or abuse people under the law.
You could argue polygamy or polyandry though.
No one has the right to marry who isn't able, by law, to enter into a legal contract. That includes children. You have to be of the age of consent to marry.
Same sex marriage doesn't expand the group of people legally able to marry. Everyone who could marry before can marry now, and no one who *couldn't* marry before can marry now. Legal adults could marry before. Children could not.
The only difference is whom they may marry.
Unless you're suggesting that there is some segment of the population that is legally allowed to commit pedophilia, then your argument against equal protection is specious.
it only instills hatred to those who's minds are either closed or prejudice like some religious folks. it's a marriage , as simple as that. whether they are same sex or not is irrelevant.
" However, marriage is a deep-seeded fabric of this nation." Actually think the statistics now say that majority of families are unmarried. Never believed in marriage myself. "We, as a people, need to stop adopting the personal "victim" mentality." Good point always a con-game for
special privileges and all-about-me.
So if you focus on hate you breed hate in this world! When people discriminate they only breed hate.
Another example of the states doing what they do best - being better than the federal government
According to a recent survey, 46% of Americans do not support gay marriage. 45% of Americans support it.
In my opinion, there are way too many problems in the world to give a (beep) about gay marriages. So many couples that never get married and live long, happy lives together. It would be easier to eliminate the labeling altogether (union, marriage) and if it was up to me, I'd even eliminate the whole idea of marriage, and try educate people on how to build better, loving, lasting relationships with everyone they encounter, not just their partner.
Ditto Klara, you got it! Let 'em do their thing while I do mine, or abstain from doing anything in my parched desert of a love life right now.
(Was that too much information???)
I was raised Christian but I am STOKED about the same-sex bill. So much so that I wrote a Hub about it. LOL.
New York is awesome.
Congrats NY! (there was another thread about this by friendlyworld)
I wrote that it seemed a long time ago now that I stood up as a witness for my sister's marriage. She married in 06 (the bill passed in Canada in 05).
you are not getting married because it is what other people or what the God want, it is because you and your partner want it as a symbol of your love and commitment.
Texas will soon approve it if Perry is no longer the gov, cos he is running for President!
Way to Go NY!!
I hope Texas approves it as well, but I do not want Perry for President. He has been OK fro Texas but he has not done anything great. I do not think he has what it takes to be POTUS
I think he will though. Under his reign, we have gone from middle of the pack, to dead last or 2nd to last in countless categories from education to teenage pregnancy. We have a larger deficit than California, yet this guy talks about a balanced budget. He sells off already built highways to foreign corporations for a personal profit...the guy is scumbag.
For sure, and then after he sells them off, we have to pay tolls. Its been since last year when I drove last, but to drive down 121 is a small fortune these days, even Bush freeway. The booths are like 3 miles apart. And the sad part is you do not know about the cost till you get the bill in the mail. How about what he did after the State fire. Puts himself up in a fancy place at our expense. Like I said No good for POTUS
So, the problem is not that homosexuals want to get married, it's that they may be inclined to call it a marriage. This type of childish crap is a large part of the problems we face in this country. It's pretty simple folks, If you have the right to do something, and I have the same right, why doesn't the third person have this right? All men/women are created equal is not that hard to understand if you have the least amount of common sense. No where does it say that all men/women who attend your church are created equal? Way to go NY, for telling the religous bigots to shove it.
I agree. I resent the fact that religious bigots act as they speak on behalf of all religious people. They cherry-pick the most bigoted variant of every religion and act as if all religion is united against marriage equality.
There's no reason any particular church can't choose to define marriage under its own rules one way or another. But to intervene in the civil definition as it relates to gay couples is particularly galling, since most would not dare to impose their other specific marriage definitions on society at large.
"This type of childish crap is a large part of the problems we face in this country."
I am thrilled to shreds about this decision. There can be so many arguments put for and against the issue of gay marriage, but this is just one more step in the process of equality for all gays. Thanks for the early birthday present, New York!
I feel happy for all the couples and people who just want to live together and not be second-class citizens, and have equal inheritance and tax laws for them. It's good news.
hey all, thought this might be relevant
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/yo … liber.html
Yes, those few Jews who are Republican are almost never socially conservative (Singer, Asness, and Loeb are all Jewish).
Since the non-religious are also rarely socially conservative, Muslims, Hindus and others fairly small in number, and Catholics surprisingly liberal considering their church doctrine, then the problem is what we've always suspected it is: evangelical Christians.
Fortunately, evangelicals are also opportunistic, so they'll change their mind when it is no longer profitable to be homophobic, too.
" when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty."
But so many conservatives don't see liberty when it's being exercised by people unlike themselves. It's nice that there are some "liberaltarians" as the article calls them.
Yes, that's definitely it. The modern conservative movement has (over)used the words "freedom" and "liberty" without explaining how specific their definitions are.
Fortunately, there are a lot of conservatives who buck the trend.
I've read elsewhere that at least one of them has a gay son, too. It takes a pretty special level of hate to be able to look your own kid in the eye and say, "no, you can't have equal rights because of who you are."
Not that people don't still manage to do that with a frequency that just boggles my mind, but I'm glad that in this case, at least, the dad did the right thing.
That makes sense, and is true. Support for marriage equality is probably highest among those who know gay people very well, especially if they're in their family, for exactly the reason you say.
There's no helping those that shun or try to send them to "pray the gay away" camp, of course, but they're fortunately a dying breed.
I for one am ecstatic for the LGBT community to have this chance. Marriage isn't about gender or orientation. Marriage *to me and those I know may agree* is about two PEOPLE no matter the gender/orientation whom LOVE cherish and support each other thru sickness and in health as long as they both shall live. This is my opinion, what happens behind closed doors isnt the worlds concern between two lovers. It's what they do outside of those two doors that matter in my eyes. If two people love each other and decide to get married good for them...unless they're 16 ish no one should care etc. I am thrilled that NY has this right now congrats NY!!! I <3 U! and I know my state just passed Civil Unions which is one step closer to marriage. Change is apart of life how will we evolve if we do not allow it in? Just saying. Thank you for posting this and I just wanted to share my thoughts. Have a wonderful day.
Yeah, I have a thought. Good for NY. Now all the other states can get with the program, and gay people can get married and live happily ever after, or maybe not...
The divorce rate in America for first marriages is 50% percent, 67% for second, and 74% for third marriages according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.
Sorry, but I do not see a point in gay marriage, unless it's political as other legislations. - I do because I can and who can stop me?
Do you see the point in heterosexual marriage?
Hey home. There is much more to it. Same sex marrige will now allow the people joined in matramony the same benifits you have as a maqrried woman. First there is the bond of marrige. Then there are tax benifits, health care benifits, insurance benifits, estate benifits which are huge, and many more. It is about time they are allowed the same rights as all of us. They are human, they have feelings, they are Americans. They deserve to be treated as such
You want to recognize them when they serve in our armed forces laying down their lives protecting you and our country, but you do not want them to marry the one they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with?
I think the partner can receive work benefits this way. Like medical. But I feel it is still funny that people say how great it all is but gays are not accepted in mainstream society and never will be. The thought of a marriage with not chance to build a family (naturally that is like a heterosexual couple) leaves a weird feeling for me. I was at a gay wedding not too long ago and it had a very different feel to it than any heterosexual wedding. But if two people want to live together they should be able to reap the benefits as any parter would.
As a straight atheist I'd like to say, don't assume all gays are anti-flying spaghetti monster.
I don't know what that means but, all men/women are created equal, means just that. Most of the objections to same sex marriages come from the religious minded folks(trying to be extra polite) in this secular nation.
None of their objections gleaned from cherry picking the bible to suit their personal bigotry, have anything to do with our laws. There are christians who support gay/human rights.
These true christians who disagree with those other true christians probably aren't true christians, in the truest sense of the word.
What does the fact that some find justification for their bigotry in the bible, have to do with our Constutuion and Bill of Rights? No more justification than those true christians in the south had for the belief that it was their god given right to own slaves. No more justification than they had for their belief that it was their god given right to keep women classified as second class citizens.
Hopefully New York will lead the rest of America into this century.
New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon are states so far that legalized same sex marriages. 6 states down, 44 to go!
Legitimatizing gay union mocks Christianity. Only the DEMS would seek to give legitimacy to a group who coalesce to achieve sanctioned sodomizing rights. America's descent continues.
Coquille Indian Tribe,
When did this become a state? Did I miss a Memo?
I'm happy. I have a lot of gay friends - gay people are just that - PEOPLE and they deserve the same rights as anyone else.
well, they do have the same rights. It's just that our government restricts their power to express them.
No they do not hv the same rights. Thanks to the DEMs and Obama they now hv privileged status. They wanted and recieved special laws (expansion of civil rights laws --Oct. 2008) to empower them in the workplace. Like minorities and females, they can now threaten any working environment.
They now want FULL recognition of their un-Christian union from the states.
"They now want FULL recognition of their un-Christian union from the states."
Are you also in favor of the state not recognizing Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. marriages? I seem to recall an incident in South Africa sometime between WWI and WWII when the government declared that only a Christian marriage would be valid. It didn't end well.
If a State decides to recognize it becasue the majority wills it... then fine. But since all the majorities have rejected it on the ballots, I do ot see that happening.
If a State say no to that recognitiuon, excellent, as it is the Sates Right and the Majorities' will. Not a Civil Rights issue.
Actually it is a civil rights issue, as it is a case of the state interfering in the right of informed competent consenting adults, who are harming nobody, to do what they want to do.
But you'll probably just accuse me of being a leftist for disagreeing with you...
Jeff, no one is - in this entire thread - claiming that gays should not hv cohabitation rights. The issue is "marriage." A man cannot "marry'" another man. A woman cannot marry another another woman. A marriage union is an arrangement intended to secure a stable family unit. Gays hv no family unit. Gays interest in pursuing the expansion of the word marriage, is to secure financial benefits. Societies do NOT exist because of gays. They exist in spite of them. Awarding gays special legislative gifts (i.e. civil rights laws) to empower them over the heterosexuals (the ones responsible for procreating) is preposterous DEM crap. Remember, gays do not hv all the expenses associated with rearing children - along with all the burdens that children create. When you give someone (or a group) an inch ... they will always seek a mile. Next on the gay agenda : a national holiday commemorating David Geffen's b-day
if there are 2 more people happy in this world then I am happy too!
If you like to fondle members of your own gender,it's your problem, what's that got to do with marriage? Marriage is a traditional thing, many people live and produce kids without it in contemporary society. But with marriage you can protect your children and help them to grow, etc.I am not a religious person, I do not think we should condemn or punish them, but marriage is different, I think we just spit on a honored tradition and turn it into a bad comedy, and that's not even funny.
I guess the point a lot of us liberals make is that "honored tradition" or not, the definition of marriage has changed many times over the centuries and means different things to different cultures and religions even within the United States, let alone the world.
Until about 100 years ago, it was an "honored tradition" in US law that a woman became her husband's property on their wedding day. In many Islamic societies, it's an "honored tradition" that a man can take up to four wives, while in parts of Tibet, it was for many years an "honored tradition" that a woman should marry two brothers. In some Native American tribes it was an "honored tradition" for Two Spirit individuals (generally men who dressed and behaved like women) to become the wives of fellow men within the tribe.
Given the variety of marriage traditions that have been recognized as valid at one point or another within the borders of the US itself, let alone the world at large, we can't value one religion or culture's marriage tradition over another without violating people's constitutional right to freedom of religion and equal protection under the laws. As long as the marriage is conducted between consenting adults, it is unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry the partner of their choice.
"but marriage is different, I think we just spit on a honored tradition and turn it into a bad comedy,"
Perhaps we should go back to the way marriage was in the bible: multiple wives, and even more concubines. That's tradition, right there!
We still want to reserve right to laugh at somebody who does not look like us, don't we?
Well stated Kerry. The problem seems to be that too many christians in this country believe that Constitutional rights only apply to those they approve of. They only mention the constuttion when they feel their rights are being voilated. It doesn't matter whether it is true, the only thing that matters is their perception of the truth.
It's not that hard to uderstand that all means all unless, you have made up your mind to act according to a personal perception rather than reality.
Gays being allowed to marry harms christians in no manner what so ever. They are simply unable and unwilling to allow their god to do the judging of others. I suppose most of them feel their choice of a god is unable to function as the supreme being they believe he or she to be. If these gods are unable of doing the job they created for themselves, what makes the average christian feel they are some how superior to the god they worship? Ego and ignorance are the first two things that come to mind in my case.
But stump, these people are commanded by their God to convert all to Christianity (their own view of course) and to stamp out evil wherever they find it.
It is only recently that violence has gone out of vogue (though even now gays are assaulted, injured and killed because they don't worship properly). Unfortunately that still leaves social, financial and legal efforts to beat those evil people and their temptations out of proper God fearing society.
New York ought to be more worried about having a capital with a little mayor who believes the role of mayor is to get involved with whether restaurants put salt in their food or - the king of all "over-steppings-of-bounds) - whether people smoke cigarettes outdoors (especially in a city loaded with pollution from other sources, and one that's known for having a major rat/rodent problem).
I live in Massachusetts, so the Gay Marriage issue is yesterday's news to me. The issue of elected officals/laws that overstep bounds, don't use common sense, and butt into the personal business (and businesses) of Americans remains very much a big problem in this country (and same-sex marriage is only one - and in some ways, smaller - aspect of that problem. In other words, I'm generally all for anything that eliminates laws that butt into what people do in/with their own personal lives. (Now if only people would start seeing some of the other, seemingly small, ways in which elected officials and laws overstep bounds to the point of being contrary to The Constitution....
Lisa, you mentioned that the Gay Marriage issue is yesterday's news. I am just wondering if your state is on the brink of collapse due to this? Has society fallen into the pits of hell in your state? Let me amend that question, has your society fallen any further into the pits of hell than the religious fanatics have already pushed it to? Every time a state considers this issue, we hear the same warnings from the moral majority and yet, we never see their predictions come true. This is simply another attempt to predict the end of the world for them. Anythig they disagree with personally is bound to cause the end of the world and/or society as we know it. At some point a supposedly educated person would admit that they are wrong, when they have been proven wrong, time and time again.
BRB, I have to go refresh my memory as to the definition of educated..., ... ,... That's what I thought, no mention of religion in the definintion of educated.
Wilderness, why dot they stamp out the evil that resided within their own religion. Oh yea that's right, it's not evil when the devil made you do it. I don't see very many true christians attempting to stamp out the Westboro scum. They wont even speak out against those in their own religion that spew evil with every breath they exhale.
It could be that they are jealous of the gay marriages. From those I have met and talked to, their wedding was more than the traditional christian pre-divorce party.
Here's an excellent video from the Landover Baptist Church's Betty Bowers that explains what the bible considers traditional marriage to be.
SL, Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children. Sam Austin
by mio cid5 years ago
I have a solution to the gay marriage debate.If you are a heterosexual, don't marry somebody of your same gender,trust me the gays won't come to your house and force you.At least they haven't in my case ,when me and my...
by secularist106 years ago
According to Gallup, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage:http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First … riage.aspxThe increase in Democrats' and Independents' support pushed it over the...
by TimTurner8 years ago
Every time a gay marriage proposal hits the votes, Christian groups spend so much money on ads and campaigning against it spreading fear and their "moral" arguments.Yesterday, Maine voters repealed the gay...
by LauraGT5 years ago
Obama has become the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. Will this help or hurt him in the election? Does this signal a sea change in how our country views gay rights?
by Evan Hutchinson7 years ago
Should gay people be allowed to marry? Why? Why not?
by Jason Menayan7 years ago
Thousands of gays and lesbians and their supporters are marching in Washington against the two institutions where they are still not equal to heterosexuals: the military and marriage.Obama has pledged to end Don't Ask,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.